Skip to main content

Celebrities spread false news like a virus

Celebrities can spread false news like a virus a new study shows. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation about symptoms, vaccines and infections rates has been rife. New research published in Online Social Networks and Media investigated the authors, content and propagation of this 'infodemic'. Using data from over 92 professional fact-checking organizations between January and July 2020, researchers analyzed 1,500 false or partially false tweets that spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Celebrities are a major source of false information, as they are more likely to be liked and shared by many followers.  The results revealed that false claims spread faster than partially false claims and are generally focused on discrediting other information. The research found that brands (either organizations or celebrities) were involved in 70 per cent of the false information claims either through liking or retweeting false information. The study even identified the top ten emojis and hashtags used in tweets containing misinformation.

The study's lead author, Gautam Kishore Shahi, University of Duisburg-Essen, said: "Celebrity or not, we urge social media users to distinguish between fact and opinion and to meet any unsubstantiated claims with scepticism. We have also highlighted gaps in general understanding of COVID-19 to be addressed, as well as recommendations for authorities."






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba