Two Truths and a Lie: Exploring Soft Moderation of COVID-19 Misinformation with Amazon Alexa

Sharevski, Filipo; Gover, Donald

doi:10.1145/3465481.3470017

Cited by 6 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The risk of bias in 16 included studies was classified as low according to the JBI critical appraisal tool. [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] Five studies showed a moderate risk of bias. [38][39][40][41]44 Finally, 24 included studies showed a high risk of bias.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…23,27,40,41 The US sample size amounted to 12 759 people from four studies. 25,31,35,42 Middle Eastern countries were represented through studies from Kuwait, 22 Jordan, 24,33 and Saudi Arabia 34 and counted for 9313 people of the total sample. A total of 7082 participants came from Asian countries such as China, 36,37 India, 43 and Turkey.…”

Section: Highmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, some studies did specify which social media platforms they were assessing. The studies with low risk of bias that specified the social media platform they were assessing focused on Twitter only 35 and several platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, WhatsApp, WeChat, Weibo, and TikTok. 30,34,36,37 Among the studies that collected data from social media (Table 2), ten studies extracted data from Twitter, 45,48,49,51,53,54,[57][58][59]65 two from YouTube, 44,52 one from TikTok, 47 one from Reddit, 60 one from Parler, 46 and one from Facebook.…”

Section: Highmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…23,27,30,40,41,43,51,52,57 Six studies were concerned specifically with medical misinformation. 22,31,35,39,60,61 12 studies reported on COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or anti-vaccine discourse without going into further detail. 28,32,[36][37][38]44,47,50,58,[62][63][64] We identified 19 studies that made assumptions about the effects of social media misinformation on vaccine hesitancy (Table 4).…”

Section: Highmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Misinformation about Covid-19 Vaccines on Social Media: Rapid Review

Skafle¹,

Quintana²,

Wynn³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of COVID-19 vaccines has been crucial in fighting the pandemic. Misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines on social media is a major challenge, as this is thought to contribute to vaccine hesitancy. Here, we review the research on misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines spread on social media platforms. The review is registered with the PROSPERO international register of systematic reviews (CRD42021277524). We performed a literature search on 9 September 2021 and searched PubMed, PsycINFO, ERIC, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. We included publications in peer-reviewed journals that fulfilled all following criteria: Original empirical studies, studies that assessed social media and misinformation, studies that dealt with vaccine hesitancy, and studies about the COVID-19 vaccine. Publications were excluded if data were gathered before Phase III in the first COVID-19 vaccine development (from July 27 2020 to November 13, 2020). The narrative qualitative synthesis was undertaken with the guidance of the PRISMA 2020 Statement and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis reporting guideline. The risk of bias was assessed according to The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tool. Ratings of the certainty of evidence were based on recommendations from the GRADE Working Group. The search amounted to 757 records, with 45 articles selected for the review. There are many types of misinformation that are spread on social media platforms. We identified three main areas of misinformation: Medical misinformation, vaccine development, and conspiracies. To prevent these misconceptions from taking hold, health authorities should openly address and discuss these false claims with both cultural and religious awareness in mind. Our review showed that there is a need to examine the effect of social media misinformation on vaccine hesitancy with a more robust experimental design. Furthermore, our review also demonstrated that more studies are needed from the Global South and on other social media platforms than the major platforms such as Twitter.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Highmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Highmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Highmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Misinformation about Covid-19 Vaccines on Social Media: Rapid Review

Skafle¹,

Quintana²,

Wynn³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(2021) . To address this limitation and gather more evidence that the interstitial warnings work but the contextual tags do not, we replicated the study with the same stimuli in smart home settings where Amazon Alexa was the one that read the Tweets and the warnings to the participants Sharevski and Gover (2021) . Here too, users heed the interstitial warnings spoken back by Alexa before and ignored the contextual tags.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Misinformation warnings: Twitter’s soft moderation effects on COVID-19 vaccine belief echoes

Sharevski

Alsaadi

Jachim

et al. 2022

Computers & Security

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twitter, prompted by the rapid spread of alternative narratives, started actively warning users about the spread of COVID-19 misinformation. This form of soft moderation comes in two forms: as an interstitial cover before the Tweet is displayed to the user or as a contextual tag displayed below the Tweet. We conducted a 319-participants study with both verified and misleading Tweets covered or tagged with the COVID-19 misinformation warnings to investigate how Twitter users perceive the accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine content on Twitter. The results suggest that the interstitial covers work, but not the contextual tags, in reducing the perceived accuracy of COVID-19 misinformation. Soft moderation is known to create so-called ”belief echoes” where the warnings echo back, instead of dispelling, preexisting beliefs about morally-charged topics. We found that such “belief echoes” do exist among Twitter users in relationship to the perceived safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine as well as the vaccination hesitancy for themselves and their children. These “belief echoes” manifested as skepticism of adequate COVID-19 immunization particularly among Republicans and Independents as well as female Twitter users. Surprisingly, we found that the belief echoes are strong enough to preclude adult Twitter users to receive the COVID-19 vaccine regardless of their education level.

show abstract