Vaccine hesitancy is currently recognized by the WHO as a major threat to global health. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a growing interest in the role of social media in the propagation of false information and fringe narratives regarding vaccination. Using a sample of approximately 60 billion tweets, Danish investigators conducted a large-scale analysis of the vaccine discourse on Twitter. They used methods from deep learning and transfer learning to estimate the vaccine sentiments expressed in tweets, then categorize individual-level user attitudes towards vaccines. Drawing on an interaction graph representing mutual interactions between users, They analyzed the interplay between vaccine stances, interaction network, and the information sources shared by users in vaccine-related contexts.
The results show that strongly anti-vaccine users frequently share content from sources of a commercial nature; typically sources that sell alternative health products for profit. An interesting aspect of this finding is that concerns regarding commercial conflicts of interests are often cited as one of the major factors in vaccine hesitancy.
The authors furthermore demonstrate that the debate is highly polarized, in the sense that users with similar stances on vaccination interact preferentially with one another. Extending this insight, the authors provide evidence of an epistemic echo chamber effect, where users are exposed to highly dissimilar sources of vaccine information, enforcing the vaccination stance of their contacts.
The authors concluded that their findings highlight the importance of understanding and addressing vaccine mis- and disinformation in the context in which they are disseminated in social networks.
In the article, the authors comment that their findings paint a picture of the vaccine discourse on Twitter as highly polarized, where users who express similar sentiments regarding vaccinations are more likely to interact with one another, and tend to share contents from similar sources. Focusing on users whose vaccination stances are the positive and negative extremes of the spectrum, we observe relatively disjoint ‘epistemic echo chambers’ which imply that members of the two groups of users rarely interact, and in which users experience highly dissimilar ‘information landscapes’ depending on their stance. Finally, we find that strongly anti-vaccine users much more frequently share information from actors with a vested commercial interest in promoting medical misinformation.
One implication of these findings is that online (medical) misinformation may present an even greater problem than previously thought, because beliefs and behaviors in tightly knit, internally homogeneous communities are more resilient, and provide fertile ground for fringe narratives, while mainstream information is attenuated. Furthermore, such polarization of communities may become self-perpetuating, because individuals avoid those not sharing their views, or because exposure to mainstream information might further entrench fringe viewpoints.
7 Responses to Echo chambers of vaccine hesitancy and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)
Leave a Reply to Robin H Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
The Skeptical Inquirer has an interesting article about communicating with science deniers and other people who are stuck in a bubble where ‘reality’ and ‘facts’ are completely different from what we see:
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2022/02/how-to-talk-to-science-deniers/
Summarized:
– Ignoring people spreading unscientific ideas and misinformation does not work; they see a lack of opposition as confirmation of their beliefs.
– But when engaging these people, do not try to convince them that they’re wrong using a deluge of facts and lines of reasoning, scientific or otherwise.
– Listen to them, and, most importantly,
– Ask the right questions to make them explain their point of view in more detail – causing them to think about things the way they do, instead of simply regurgitating their ‘truth’ without thinking.
– Always try to stay polite and respectful. This latter can sometimes be difficult, e.g. if the ideas espoused are exceptionally crazy, or in the case of trolls.
The rather discouraging thing is that even this approach does not work all that often. As people invest more time and emotions(!) in a particular belief or set of beliefs, it becomes increasingly harder for them to back out of those beliefs, no matter how much they are confronted by facts and questions that prove them wrong.
This mechanism is very clearly visible in YouTube video’s where young-earth creationists debate people who do not share their beliefs (usually over evolution): even though they are confronted with overwhelming evidence that they are not only wrong, but actually do not even know what they are talking about, they will never correct themselves, but instead keep bringing forth the exact same hugely erroneous points in the next debate. E.g. when they try to discredit or disprove evolution, they will always bring up the Big Bang theory (‘Something cannot come from nothing'(*)) – which has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution!
*: And they don’t even realize that their own beliefs contradict this statement: they implicitly assert that not only did their creator come from nothing, but that apparently, this creator created the universe out of nothing.
A good debunking handbook.
People almost never change their mind right in front of you. What they do, if you’ve been successful, is to go away and think about it.
And never in debates. Debates are a contest, they aren’t about changing one’s mind. What’s (hopefully) up for grabs is the minds of people in the audience.
Street Epistemology, derived from the Socratic method, was developed to challenge people’s religious views, but it can be used with believers in alt-med. There are many Youtube videos illustrating it.
But even Peter Boghossian, who came up with Street Epistemology, said he only experienced one person changing their mind right in front of him.
Also, people will more readily change their mind if you’re friends with them. People get their opinions from people they feel comfortable with, often.
Which seems weird – why would someone think that a person is right about some factual matter, just because they’re a friend? But that’s what people are like.
Also, Peter Boghossian said in his book A Manual for Creating Atheists that it’s easier to change people’s minds when talking to them in person, rather than online. Being able to see someone’s body language and tone of voice, and see their face, seems to help.
At least the “trolls” – the believers in alt-med, anti-vaccine propaganda etc. who comment on skeptical blogs like this one – are stepping out of their echo chamber, exposing themselves to the arguments against their opinions.
Maybe when they disappear for awhile after an argument, they go back to their echo chamber to shore up their belief system?
Often the “troll” description is used against someone who has beliefs that are different from the prevailing one. It’s a way of preserving an echo chamber, by pushing away people who don’t echo the prevailing belief.
@Robin H
Most of them come here to do the trolling. I guess you could give them credit for stepping out of their echo chambers, but at the end of the day you have see how they are interacting with everyone else on this blog. Are they changing their stance after being confronted with facts? Are they digging in and spouting more nonsense? In my experience, esp. on this blog, the one’s that are labelled as trolls tend to fall into the later category.
That is par for the course, although it might change depending on how one interacts with them. For more info, see https://edzardernst.com/2022/03/echo-chambers-of-vaccine-hesitancy-and-so-called-alternative-medicine-scam/#comment-138062
It goes both ways. That is if the someone continues to behave like a troll, they will be called a troll and treated like one.