The problem with passing around science “information” without pause for scrutiny.
It’s best to pause and reconsider resharing virus protocol sheets, pandemic zines, or a scientific study reference management link dump.
It’s really not a good idea to share a list of studies someone passed along. Some of these link dumps of science articles are just people’s personal internet bookmark system. If you hacked into my bookmarks you’d find a bunch of links to things I would never ever recommend to anyone for any reason! Because I do oppo research on fake science and right-wing attacks on public health, anti-vax disinformation, and climate denial — which get used as footnotes. And that’s why I wouldn’t share any list. But unfortunately some people aren’t thinking this through before making a list like that public, and it could just be a bunch of links out of context.
DEF CON 26 - Svea, Suggy, Till - Inside the Fake Science Factory - Sep 17, 2018 Fake News has got a sidekick and it's called Fake Science. This talk presents the findings and methodology from a team of investigative journalists, hackers and data scientists who delved into the parallel universe of fraudulent pseudo-academic conferences and journals; Fake science factories, twilight companies whose sole purpose is to give studies an air of scientific credibility while cashing in on millions of dollars in the process. Until recently, these fake science factories have remained relatively under the radar, with few outside of academia aware of their presence; but the highly profitable industry is growing significantly and with it, so are the implications. To the public, fake science is indistinguishable from legitimate science, which is facing similar accusations itself. Our findings highlight the prevalence of the pseudo-academic conferences, journals and publications and the damage they can and are doing to society.
There’s really no way to know because lists passed around on social media so often seem to be peppered with problems. If you pass these lists along, you may be inadvertently spreading misinformation because they may include not so obvious but debunked, fake, or retracted stuff and where people won't be reading anything past the headline. You may see notes added to some that they’re “under investigation” or “editor’s notes” attached, but not always. And you would have to at least visit the website of the study to see that it’s been retracted, for example. Or to see if it even leads anywhere at all. Also, you may need to actually look at the details of a study to find out that it’s a study done by the vendor of a product with conflicts of interest, or perhaps that it’s a very small study, in vitro, a preliminary animal study, or even just a computer simulation or a prosthetic simulation and not a real world study at all. I’ve seen some full treatment PR built on so little.
Retraction Watch - Publisher adds temporary online notifications to articles “under investigation”. September 25, 2024 Author Ellie Kincaid Like the “editor’s notes” posted on Springer Nature articles under investigation, Taylor & Francis’ pop-ups only appear on the publisher’s website, not in databases where researchers might be searching for papers. The company’s publishing ethics and integrity team decides which articles it’s investigating get such a notification and when, according to a new web page describing the process.
I have seen progressives, lefties, and liberals engaging with doctors from the right-wing anti-vax activism circuit and with people connected to covid contrarians who promoted things like the Great Barrington Declaration or the movie Plandemic. These people are not going to help anyone treat Long Covid because they’re the same people who disparage proven cancer treatments in order to push cancer quack treatments. But still people concerned about long covid or suffering themselves seem to get side-tracked by irrelevant worries around blood donations, and chasing unsubstantiated statements or studies lacking peer review by doctors and scientists promoting pet theories and, according to patients, selling them not ready for prime time treatments for steep fees.
Some people who get receipt of such content will discover this or that problematic thing on a list, or notice the zine is promoting dangerous colloidal silver or anti-vax claims, and may assume people taking precautions are just as off the wall about science because they look almost identical to “do your own research” Qanon covid protocols that were passed around circa 2020.
Part of the problem is that everyone has type I error cognitive biases, and a study found that while it might make people more likely to take precautions at all, it also might prompt them to take bogus precautions too.
Teovanović P, Lukić P, Zupan Z, Lazić A, Ninković M, Žeželj I. Irrational beliefs differentially predict adherence to guidelines and pseudoscientific practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2021 Mar-Apr;35(2):486-496. doi: 10.1002/acp.3770. Epub 2020 Dec 7. PMID: 33362344; PMCID: PMC7753549. “Somewhat unexpectedly, susceptibility to type I error cognitive biases predisposed people to engage in any type of preventive behavior, whether evidence-based or pseudoscientific.”
But most people passing around this stuff, once it's pointed out to them, realize they didn’t read every page or every link carefully – which is typical these days when everyone’s overloaded with information. But them some of these people double down on the colloidal silver when it’s pointed out to them, and they couldn't do a better job of strawmanning disability justice as a bunch of cranks and weirdos, that I almost hope some of these people are part of a deliberate ops to undermine public health, because the alternative is just disheartening.
The problem with going to social media for “information”. Yes, this is something I hear about regularly, people saying how they're relying on social media sources for “good information” and seeking it nowhere else. Chloe Humbert Jan 06, 2025 I don’t know why people prefer to be manipulated, other than that some people see being manipulated on social media as a part of the bargain to get their dopamine hits, because the social media is just that addictive maybe? I don’t trust those people, and those are a lot of the people who are posting and reposting stuff on social media, and those are the people who are for real, before you even get to the people who are deliberately acting with deceitful malice. This is the whole problem with social media “information”.
But a big part of what’s going on is just that it's a habit to reshare things without thinking it through first. And habits are hard to break, even if you know you should.
Sharing of misinformation is habitual, not just lazy or biased, “Due to the reward-based learning systems on social media, users form habits of sharing information that attracts others' attention. Once habits form, information sharing is automatically activated by cues on the platform without users considering response outcomes such as spreading misinformation.” Sharing of misinformation is habitual, not just lazy or biased, Gizem Ceylan, Ian A. Anderson, and Wendy Wood, Edited by Susan Fiske, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ; received September 28, 2022; accepted December 3, 2022, January 17, 2023 120 (4) e2216614120 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216614120
I realize that many people view the CDC dimly because they really fail at public messaging to actually prevent or control disease. Regardless of how the CDC buckles to business interests, how CDC officials undermine trust with inconsistent statements and saying one thing and doing another, or awful things CDC directors have been quoted saying in public before during and after their stents through the revolving doors – the CDC and other official sources still often have factual information on their websites, carefully articulated by highly trained professionals in public health and medical fields who happen to work for the public agency. And you will find that medical, public health, and science professionals and organizations do refer to that material. Typically the critique is about the lack of delivery of the information and implementation of solutions known to public health.
A large gathering should at a minimum specifically ask people who are sick with covid or flu to stay home instead, or at least strongly recommend masking for anyone who is currently unwell. This is the minimum, to adhere to the recommended guidance of the CDC. That’s the minimum. Less precaution will likely precipitate an event becoming a superspreader. web.archive.org/web/20241211172700/http://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/prevention/precautions-when-sick.html