The COVID-19 Infodemic: Twitter versus Facebook
The global spread of the novel coronavirus is affected by the spread of related misinformation—the so-called COVID-19 Infodemic—that makes populations more vulnerable to the disease through resistance to mitigation efforts. Here, we analyze the prevalence and diffusion of links to low-credibility co...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2021-05-01
|
Series: | Big Data & Society |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211013861 |
id |
doaj-c70ec68e31b640818b7b3fee00a4b523 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-c70ec68e31b640818b7b3fee00a4b5232021-05-10T03:03:46ZengSAGE PublishingBig Data & Society2053-95172021-05-01810.1177/20539517211013861The COVID-19 Infodemic: Twitter versus FacebookKai-Cheng YangFrancesco PierriPik-Mai HuiDavid AxelrodChristopher Torres-LugoJohn BrydenFilippo MenczerThe global spread of the novel coronavirus is affected by the spread of related misinformation—the so-called COVID-19 Infodemic—that makes populations more vulnerable to the disease through resistance to mitigation efforts. Here, we analyze the prevalence and diffusion of links to low-credibility content about the pandemic across two major social media platforms, Twitter and Facebook. We characterize cross-platform similarities and differences in popular sources, diffusion patterns, influencers, coordination, and automation. Comparing the two platforms, we find divergence among the prevalence of popular low-credibility sources and suspicious videos. A minority of accounts and pages exert a strong influence on each platform. These misinformation “superspreaders” are often associated with the low-credibility sources and tend to be verified by the platforms. On both platforms, there is evidence of coordinated sharing of Infodemic content. The overt nature of this manipulation points to the need for societal-level solutions in addition to mitigation strategies within the platforms. However, we highlight limits imposed by inconsistent data-access policies on our capability to study harmful manipulations of information ecosystems.https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211013861 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Kai-Cheng Yang Francesco Pierri Pik-Mai Hui David Axelrod Christopher Torres-Lugo John Bryden Filippo Menczer |
spellingShingle |
Kai-Cheng Yang Francesco Pierri Pik-Mai Hui David Axelrod Christopher Torres-Lugo John Bryden Filippo Menczer The COVID-19 Infodemic: Twitter versus Facebook Big Data & Society |
author_facet |
Kai-Cheng Yang Francesco Pierri Pik-Mai Hui David Axelrod Christopher Torres-Lugo John Bryden Filippo Menczer |
author_sort |
Kai-Cheng Yang |
title |
The COVID-19 Infodemic: Twitter versus Facebook |
title_short |
The COVID-19 Infodemic: Twitter versus Facebook |
title_full |
The COVID-19 Infodemic: Twitter versus Facebook |
title_fullStr |
The COVID-19 Infodemic: Twitter versus Facebook |
title_full_unstemmed |
The COVID-19 Infodemic: Twitter versus Facebook |
title_sort |
covid-19 infodemic: twitter versus facebook |
publisher |
SAGE Publishing |
series |
Big Data & Society |
issn |
2053-9517 |
publishDate |
2021-05-01 |
description |
The global spread of the novel coronavirus is affected by the spread of related misinformation—the so-called COVID-19 Infodemic—that makes populations more vulnerable to the disease through resistance to mitigation efforts. Here, we analyze the prevalence and diffusion of links to low-credibility content about the pandemic across two major social media platforms, Twitter and Facebook. We characterize cross-platform similarities and differences in popular sources, diffusion patterns, influencers, coordination, and automation. Comparing the two platforms, we find divergence among the prevalence of popular low-credibility sources and suspicious videos. A minority of accounts and pages exert a strong influence on each platform. These misinformation “superspreaders” are often associated with the low-credibility sources and tend to be verified by the platforms. On both platforms, there is evidence of coordinated sharing of Infodemic content. The overt nature of this manipulation points to the need for societal-level solutions in addition to mitigation strategies within the platforms. However, we highlight limits imposed by inconsistent data-access policies on our capability to study harmful manipulations of information ecosystems. |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211013861 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT kaichengyang thecovid19infodemictwitterversusfacebook AT francescopierri thecovid19infodemictwitterversusfacebook AT pikmaihui thecovid19infodemictwitterversusfacebook AT davidaxelrod thecovid19infodemictwitterversusfacebook AT christophertorreslugo thecovid19infodemictwitterversusfacebook AT johnbryden thecovid19infodemictwitterversusfacebook AT filippomenczer thecovid19infodemictwitterversusfacebook AT kaichengyang covid19infodemictwitterversusfacebook AT francescopierri covid19infodemictwitterversusfacebook AT pikmaihui covid19infodemictwitterversusfacebook AT davidaxelrod covid19infodemictwitterversusfacebook AT christophertorreslugo covid19infodemictwitterversusfacebook AT johnbryden covid19infodemictwitterversusfacebook AT filippomenczer covid19infodemictwitterversusfacebook |
_version_ |
1721453756219916288 |