Social Media as a Conduit for Spreading Misinformation: An Examination of Antivaccination Messages in the Wake of the 2019 Washington Measles Outbreak

Deborah D. Sellnow-Richmond, Scott Sellnow-Richmond
{"title":"Social Media as a Conduit for Spreading Misinformation: An Examination of Antivaccination Messages in the Wake of the 2019 Washington Measles Outbreak","authors":"Deborah D. Sellnow-Richmond, Scott Sellnow-Richmond","doi":"10.51423/2524-0471-2022-14-2-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Public health experts have studied global pandemics long before the COVID-19 outbreak of 2020. Since the worldwide spread of HIV, SARS, H1N1, and Ebola among others, scholars have focused on identifying best practices for risk mitigation and reaching disparate publics to engage in appropriate risk mitigation behaviors. The 2019 measles outbreak in Washington, USA flourished in large part due to the viral spread of misinformation on social networking platforms. Due to intended openness of these platforms, antivaccination messaging became prominent, and the U.S. among other countries to have eradicated measles saw a number of outbreaks. In the U.S. in 2019, many of these occurred in Washington state. These outbreaks served as an impetus for social media platforms to reconsider their role in spreading health misinformation and its contribution to real world danger. This analysis considers open media ethics to understand social media platforms’ initial decisions to allow vaccine misinformation and the role of communication scholars and practitioners have in understanding, and acting on misinformation. Using a case study approach, this article examines online discourse about the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, policy measures related to vaccine exemption, and social media organization formal responses in 2019 directly related to the increase in U.S. measles outbreaks. Using an open media ethics framework, findings from this study illustrate the ways in which these organizations initially intended to have an open platform for health-related discussions. Further analysis demonstrates that these organizations focused on existing terms of use to put in place protective measures that would prevent further spread of this mis- and disinformation. However, conclusions draw illustrate that placing the onus on the social media organizations alone is insufficient to prevent outbreaks such as this to occur, and as the COVID-19 pandemic began the following year, the implications of this study continue to pose questions about social media misinformation management.","PeriodicalId":222739,"journal":{"name":"Social Communications: Theory and Practice","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Communications: Theory and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51423/2524-0471-2022-14-2-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Public health experts have studied global pandemics long before the COVID-19 outbreak of 2020. Since the worldwide spread of HIV, SARS, H1N1, and Ebola among others, scholars have focused on identifying best practices for risk mitigation and reaching disparate publics to engage in appropriate risk mitigation behaviors. The 2019 measles outbreak in Washington, USA flourished in large part due to the viral spread of misinformation on social networking platforms. Due to intended openness of these platforms, antivaccination messaging became prominent, and the U.S. among other countries to have eradicated measles saw a number of outbreaks. In the U.S. in 2019, many of these occurred in Washington state. These outbreaks served as an impetus for social media platforms to reconsider their role in spreading health misinformation and its contribution to real world danger. This analysis considers open media ethics to understand social media platforms’ initial decisions to allow vaccine misinformation and the role of communication scholars and practitioners have in understanding, and acting on misinformation. Using a case study approach, this article examines online discourse about the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, policy measures related to vaccine exemption, and social media organization formal responses in 2019 directly related to the increase in U.S. measles outbreaks. Using an open media ethics framework, findings from this study illustrate the ways in which these organizations initially intended to have an open platform for health-related discussions. Further analysis demonstrates that these organizations focused on existing terms of use to put in place protective measures that would prevent further spread of this mis- and disinformation. However, conclusions draw illustrate that placing the onus on the social media organizations alone is insufficient to prevent outbreaks such as this to occur, and as the COVID-19 pandemic began the following year, the implications of this study continue to pose questions about social media misinformation management.
社交媒体作为传播错误信息的渠道:2019年华盛顿麻疹爆发后对反疫苗接种信息的检查
早在2020年COVID-19爆发之前,公共卫生专家就已经研究了全球流行病。自从艾滋病毒、SARS、H1N1和埃博拉病毒等在全球范围内传播以来,学者们一直致力于确定降低风险的最佳做法,并使不同的公众参与适当的风险降低行为。2019年美国华盛顿爆发麻疹疫情,很大程度上是由于社交平台上错误信息的病毒式传播。由于这些平台有意开放,反疫苗信息变得突出,美国和其他已经根除麻疹的国家一起出现了多次疫情。在2019年的美国,其中许多都发生在华盛顿州。这些疫情促使社交媒体平台重新考虑其在传播健康错误信息方面的作用及其对现实世界危险的贡献。该分析考虑了开放的媒体伦理,以理解社交媒体平台最初允许疫苗错误信息的决定,以及传播学者和从业者在理解错误信息并采取行动方面的作用。本文采用案例研究的方法,研究了关于麻疹、腮腺炎和风疹疫苗的在线讨论,与疫苗豁免相关的政策措施,以及2019年与美国麻疹疫情增加直接相关的社交媒体组织的正式回应。使用开放的媒体伦理框架,本研究的结果说明了这些组织最初打算为健康相关的讨论提供开放平台的方式。进一步的分析表明,这些组织将重点放在现有的使用条款上,以采取保护措施,防止这种错误和虚假信息的进一步传播。然而,得出的结论表明,仅将责任推给社交媒体组织不足以防止此类疫情的发生,并且随着2019冠状病毒病大流行在第二年开始,本研究的影响继续提出有关社交媒体错误信息管理的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信