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

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

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho