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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kai-Cheng Yang, Francesco Pierri, Pik-Mai Hui, David Axelrod, Christopher Torres-Lugo, John Bryden, Filippo Menczer
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