Bounded Confidence: How AI Could Exacerbate Social Media’s Homophily Problem

The advent of the Internet was heralded as a revolutionary development in the democratization of information. It has emerged, however, that online discourse on social media tends to narrow the information landscape of its users. This dynamic is driven by the propensity of the network structure of social media to tend toward homophily; users strongly prefer to interact with content and other users that are similar to them. We review the considerable evidence for the ubiquity of homophily in social media, discuss some possible mechanisms for this phenomenon, and present some observed and hypothesized effects. We also discuss how the homophilic structure of social media makes it uniquely vulnerable to artificial-intelligence-driven, automated influence campaigns

Touching the cornerstone: An illustrative example of the effects of stigma and discrimination on vaccine-hesitant parents

Objectives The concept of vaccine hesitancy encompasses multiple views on the subject. However, there has been an increasing polarization of the discourse on vaccine hesitancy leading to the stigmatization of those parents who expressed doubts or concerns regarding vaccination practices. The present study aimed to explore the drivers and consequences of polarized discourses on vaccination in the Portuguese context. This paper is part of a broader study which aims to gain a deeper understanding about the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy at the European level. Study design A qualitative research design was used. Methods The sample was comprised of thirty-one Portuguese vaccine hesitant parents who were interviewed. A thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews was performed which allowed us to identify key themes. Results The results showed that the labelling of vaccine-hesitant parents as ‘anti-vaxxers’ along with social media play a crucial role in promoting the polarization of vaccine-related attitudes. The stigmatization of vaccine hesitant parents has a disruptive impact on their social network leading them to search for online platforms where they can exchange vaccines-related information without being discriminated. Conclusions The stigma and discrimination experienced by vaccine-hesitant parents stimulated that hesitancy becomes more entrenched. Therefore, pluralism should be used to tailor vaccination promotion campaigns to different targets, promoting its reach and efficacy.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Communication Strategies to Address Vaccine Hesitancy in Healthcare Settings and on Social Media

Abstract Vaccine hesitancy is now recognized as a threat to global health. Its causes are complex, and it is defined by a resistance to or questioning of immunization. It is important to address vaccine hesitancy directly before people who are hesitant become vaccine refusers or anti-vaccine. Fortunately, with evidence-based information delivered with a compassionate communication style many of those who are hesitant to vaccinate can be persuaded to ultimately vaccinate. This paper aims to explain successful communication strategies used to address vaccine hesitancy in healthcare settings and on social media. Vaccine hesitant parents frequently list their child’s healthcare provider as a trusted source of information on vaccine issues. Research has shown that using presumptive language for vaccine introduction, followed by a compassionate and direct response to any concerns is an effective form of communication with vaccine hesitant parents. This paper teaches the C.A.S.E. Model as a way to formulate that communication. Although many people trust their providers, we cannot ignore the influence of the Internet, specifically social media, as a source of vaccine information for patients and parents. Although there is much pro-vaccine messaging on the Internet, the anti-vaccine messaging is frequently simpler, more emotionally appealing, and easily sharable. Since vaccine hesitant people tend to be silent observers of the vaccine debate online, it is important for pro-vaccine sources to communicate effectively in this arena. We describe our experience and lessons learned with this form of communication through the pro-immunization parent advocacy group, Immunize Texas

Digging the Rabbit Hole, COVID-19 Edition: Anti-Vaccine Themes and the Discourse Around COVID-19

This article draws on a broadcast popular among the anti-vaccine community to map out six themes used by the broadcast to mislead viewers about COVID-19. The themes are the claim that “they” e government and pharma e are lying to you, claims that COVID-19 is an excuse to remove civil liberties, viewing everyone as an expert, claiming that science cannot save us, skewing the science, and a claim that “they” are out to harm the viewers. The article points out that similar themes are used to mislead followers with anti-vaccine information. It highlights the concern that these themes will not only mislead people who are already anti-vaccine about the pandemic, but may draw in people who are not anti-vaccine but are seeking information about COVID-19, and suggests some options for dealing with the misinformation. Scientists benefit from understanding these claims, as we are often tasked with ttals to this misinformation

Three Preventative Interventions to Address the Fake News Phenomenon on Social Media

Fake news on social media undermines democracies and civil society. To date the research response has been message centric and reactive. This does not address the problem of fake news contaminating social media populations with disinformation, nor address the fake news producers and disseminators who are predominantly human social media users. Our research proposes three preventative interventions - two that empower social media users and one social media structural change to reduce the spread of fake news. Specifically, we investigate how i) psychological inoculation; ii) digital media literacy and iii) Transaction Cost Economy safeguarding through reputation ranking could elicit greater cognitive elaboration from social media users. Our research provides digital scalable preventative interventions to empower social media users with the aim to reduce the population size exposed to fake news

Persistent interaction patterns across social media platforms and over time

Growing concern surrounds the impact of social media platforms on public discourse1–4 and their influence on social dynamics5–9, especially in the context of toxicity10–12. Here, to better understand these phenomena, we use a comparative approach to isolate human behavioural patterns across multiple social media platforms. In particular, we analyse conversations in different online communities, focusing on identifying consistent patterns of toxic content. Drawing from an extensive dataset that spans eight platforms over 34 years—from Usenet to contemporary social media—our findings show consistent conversation patterns and user behaviour, irrespective of the platform, topic or time. Notably, although long conversations consistently exhibit higher toxicity, toxic language does not invariably discourage people from participating in a conversation, and toxicity does not necessarily escalate as discussions evolve. Our analysis suggests that debates and contrasting sentiments among users significantly contribute to more intense and hostile discussions. Moreover, the persistence of these patterns across three decades, despite changes in platforms and societal norms, underscores the pivotal role of human behaviour in shaping online discourse

Asymmetric participation of defenders and critics of vaccines to debates on French-speaking Twitter

For more than a decade, doubt about vaccines has become an increasingly important global issue. Polarization of opinions on this matter, especially through social media, has been repeatedly observed, but details about the balance of forces are left unclear. In this paper, we analyse the flow of information on vaccines on the French-speaking realm of Twitter between 2016 and 2017. Two major asymmetries appear. Rather than opposing themselves on each vaccine-related controversy, pro and anti-vaccine accounts focus on different vaccines and vaccine-related topics. Pro-vaccine accounts focus on hopes for new groundbreaking vaccines and on ongoing outbreaks of vaccine-preventable illnesses. Vaccine critics concentrate their posts on a limited number of controversial vaccines and adjuvants. Furthermore, vaccine-critical accounts display greater craft and energy, using a wider variety of sources, and a more coordinated set of hashtags. This double asymmetry can have serious consequences. Despite the presence of a large number of pro-vaccine accounts, some arguments raised by efficiently organized and very active vaccine-critical activists are left unanswered