A Deadly Infodemic: Social Media and the ID-19 Misinformation

Led by Dr. Michael A. Gisondi from Stanford University, a group of US-based medical professionals and researchers investigated the “infodemic” phenomenon on social media and how different stakeholders should respond to safeguard public health during the COVID-19 pandemic, in their academic article, “A Deadly Infodemic: Social Media and the Power of COVID-19 Misinformation.” High rates of vaccine hesitancy, a prolonged delay in accepting vaccination, and vaccine refusal, or the intent not to vaccinate, resulted in preventable COVID-19 infections and death even in countries with a surplus of vaccines and medical resources. The authors argue that the “infodemic” on social media, defined by the WHO as “too much information or false and misleading information,” “causes confusion, risk taking behaviors… and mistrust of health officials” (qtd. in Gisondi et al. 1) as well as exacerbates vaccine hesitancy and refusal, because of the prevalence of unscientific claims of vaccine side effects from influencers or seemingly trustworthy institutions.

Across the Internet, people post massive quantities of information without verification of its accuracy. Social media algorithms increase the visibility of COVID-19 information with low credibility, creating an “echo chamber” effect where only content that confirms users’ existing views, whether based on facts or otherwise, are shown to them, with a lack of opposing perspectives or evidence that can challenge their views, while platforming celebrities whose misinformation can reach large audiences, contributing to the “infodemic.” Based on utilitarian ethics they argue that companies should make decisions that benefit public health even if it comes at their expense, while corporate virtue ethics suggests that profit-making practices by social media companies that allow the proliferation of misinformation violate the criteria for what constitutes a “good” company.

In terms of solutions, the authors observe that the policing of misinformation and disinformation on social media is insufficient, and as such call for government regulations on social media content akin to traditional media outlets. They suggest collaboration between social media companies and experts in implementation science, a field that studies “methods used to introduce research findings into a health care context” (Gisondi et al. 4) and can develop strategies to reduce vaccine hesitancy in different populations. Medical professionals should also go from developing and administering cures for disease to becoming proactive public health educators and dismantling misinformation according to evidence-based interventions. The authors contend that coordinated efforts by healthcare workers, social media companies, medical researchers, and implementation scientists are necessary to combat misinformation and distrust in medical professionals, and they provide recommendations for others in the medical community on responding to misinformation on the Internet and guiding patients in seeking accurate health information.

The article invites readers, especially members of the medical community, to consider other dimensions of infection control. Aside from the quantity and effectiveness of medical resources, personnel, and public health messaging, the general public’s receptiveness to such messaging and willingness to utilize these resources is equally important in achieving high vaccine rates and saving lives. By presenting the pandemic of misinformation, disinformation, and fake news on social media as a cause for vaccine hesitancy and refusal, the authors emphasize social media’s corporate responsibility to regulate misinformation on bioethical grounds. Thus, the COVID-19 pandemic does not only require medical or scientifically based solutions, but also cooperation from corporations and active engagement between healthcare providers and their patients to ensure the public is well-informed about COVID-19.