Pdf Misunderstanding The Harms Of Online Misinformation Nature

Bonisiwe Shabane

-Dec 5, 2025, 6:39 PM

pdf misunderstanding the harms of online misinformation nature

Nature volume 630, pages 45–53 (2024)Cite this article The controversy over online misinformation and social media has opened a gap between public discourse and scientific research. Public intellectuals and journalists frequently make sweeping claims about the effects of exposure to false content online that are inconsistent with much of the current empirical evidence. Here we identify three common misperceptions: that average exposure to problematic content is high, that algorithms are largely responsible for this exposure and that social media is a primary cause of broader social problems... In our review of behavioural science research on online misinformation, we document a pattern of low exposure to false and inflammatory content that is concentrated among a narrow fringe with strong motivations to seek... In response, we recommend holding platforms accountable for facilitating exposure to false and extreme content in the tails of the distribution, where consumption is highest and the risk of real-world harm is greatest.

Budak, Ceren; Nyhan, Brendan; Rothschild, David M.; Thorson, Emily; Watts, Duncan J. Covid-19 Misinformation, Fake News and Politicization, Information Freedom, Russian Trolls, Social Media and Politics, Twitter Research Sign-up to our newsletter to be informed about latest developments: our Unpacking Current Developments in the Information Space Insight Series, our newsletter, news from our network, events and publications. 2025 - Observatory on Information & Democracy Ceren Budak, Brendan Nyhan, David M. Rothschild, Emily Thorson, Duncan J.

Watts The controversy over online misinformation and social media has opened a gap between public discourse and scientific research. Public intellectuals and journalists frequently make sweeping claims about the effects of exposure to false content online that are inconsistent with much of the current empirical evidence. Here we identify three common misperceptions: that average exposure to problematic content is high, that algorithms are largely responsible for this exposure and that social media is a primary cause of broader social problems... In our review of behavioural science research on online misinformation, we document a pattern of low exposure to false and inflammatory content that is concentrated among a narrow fringe with strong motivations to seek... In response, we recommend holding platforms accountable for facilitating exposure to false and extreme content in the tails of the distribution, where consumption is highest and the risk of real-world harm is greatest.

We also call for increased platform transparency, including collaborations with outside researchers, to better evaluate the effects of online misinformation and the most effective responses to it. Taking these steps is especially important outside the USA and Western Europe, where research and data are scant and harms may be more severe. Nature Human Behaviour volume 8, pages 1044–1052 (2024)Cite this article The spread of misinformation through media and social networks threatens many aspects of society, including public health and the state of democracies. One approach to mitigating the effect of misinformation focuses on individual-level interventions, equipping policymakers and the public with essential tools to curb the spread and influence of falsehoods. Here we introduce a toolbox of individual-level interventions for reducing harm from online misinformation.

Comprising an up-to-date account of interventions featured in 81 scientific papers from across the globe, the toolbox provides both a conceptual overview of nine main types of interventions, including their target, scope and examples,... The nine types of interventions covered are accuracy prompts, debunking and rebuttals, friction, inoculation, lateral reading and verification strategies, media-literacy tips, social norms, source-credibility labels, and warning and fact-checking labels. This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription You have full access to this article via your institution.

Online misinformation contributed to the 6 January 2021 Capitol riots.Credit: Samuel Corum/Getty “The Holocaust did happen. COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives. There was no widespread fraud in the 2020 US presidential election.” These are three statements of indisputable fact. Indisputable — and yet, in some quarters of the Internet, hotly disputed. They appear in a Comment article1 by cognitive scientist Ullrich Ecker at the University of Western Australia in Perth and his colleagues, one of series of articles in this issue of Nature dedicated to...

It is a crucial time to highlight this subject. With more than 60% of the world’s population now online, false and misleading information is spreading more easily than ever, with consequences such as increased vaccine hesitancy2 and greater political polarization3. In a year in which countries home to some four billion people are holding major elections, sensitivities around misinformation are only heightened. Misinformation poses a bigger threat to democracy than you might think

Pdf Misunderstanding The Harms Of Online Misinformation Nature

People Also Search

Nature Volume 630, Pages 45–53 (2024)Cite This Article The Controversy

We Also Call For Increased Platform Transparency, Including Collaborations With

Budak, Ceren; Nyhan, Brendan; Rothschild, David M.; Thorson, Emily; Watts,

Watts The Controversy Over Online Misinformation And Social Media Has

We Also Call For Increased Platform Transparency, Including Collaborations With