In the Republic of South Africa, it is a punishable crime to spread misinformation about COVID-19. In the United States of America, a minority of millions cry foul at any hint of infringement on their incorrectly perceived right to say whatever they want, whenever they want. Rather than creating further polarization of any specific population, the author will not delve into the worlds of political rhetoric or sensationalism. The author poses questions, discusses possible answers, and makes recommendations on the topics, including accountability and responsibility and the available options for fighting misinformation spread. The author also questions if there is any validity to the argument, “Misinformation can be directly linked to the deaths of millions, hospitalizations of tens of millions, and physical incapacitation of hundreds of millions more.”
TopIntroduction
Communication
“When we communicate, we make things common. We thus increase our shared knowledge, our ‘common sense’ – the basic precondition for all community” (Rosengren, 2000, p. 1). Through the use of machine learning algorithms (that is, the use of information technology and management), online information platforms fail both as communication providers and positive promoters of common sense, but succeed as participants in “dumbing down of the citizens.”
Early Healthcare Communication
In ancient history, you wouldn’t have been locked up for believing a supernatural being (e.g., one of many gods) or witch’s curse were at the root of a condition such as epilepsy. Similarly, many common conditions such as colds were readily treated with herbs, tree bark, or animal organs. These traditional medicines and treatments worked, or not, but within the scope of this paper, they stayed local. People in ancient Persia weren’t sending email, tweeting, or posting anything with the Romans.
With advancements in science, technology, and communication, scientists and laymen alike are able to search for, and find, evidence-based, traditional, and experimental treatments for common and rare ailments alike. What’s the latest treatment for gout? Google it. What are Ethiopian physicians using to treat malaria? Google it. What’s the latest medicine being touted to fight Covid-19? Google it.
Yesterday’s snake oil salespeople are today’s “Google epidemiologists.” These self-proclaimed healthcare providers search social media platforms (SMPs) for the latest Covid-19 drug and proceed to tweet, re-tweet, and post “amazing finds the government is keeping from you.” Their online search, and every result presented and clicked on, are stored by the browser owner.
The storage of information is a dynamic situation in which the artificial intelligence (AI) in the background “looks for information the user will likely find relevant.” In essence, the AI is attempting to predict what you’ll want to see and read about tomorrow by using the information it’s gathered to-date. Problematic for the user is the AI is not in the business of finding different opinions and information, it’s looking to provide more of the same. And the more the user clicks, the more the system “learns” what the user wants. This loop is what drives machine learning algorithms (MLA) and helps address the question of why those receiving misinformation are so reluctant to believe anything “from the other side.”
In simple terms algorithms use machine learning (MLA) to predict what users want to see (Newberry & Sehl, 2021). If you clicked on am “ivermectin is the cure for Covid-19” link, the MLA has begun the “this is what you want, this is what you’ll want to see” feedback loop. Soon, you’ll doubt the efficacy of vaccines, question public health safety precautions, and blame the Chinese for developing a bioweapon against the US.
The Greatest Enemy of Today’s Facts
Time, for both good and bad, has made fools of scientist and con-man alike. The miracle cures, trusted medicines, and snake oils of today may or not, be the best choices tomorrow. And therein lies the achilles heel of science, and the core argument of the information versus misinformation battle: Will the outright banning of today’s misinformation lead to a future where all information is questioned?
Specific Objectives
The authors pose questions, discuss possible answers, and make recommendations on the topics of: (1) Accountability and responsibility, (2) While weighing the pros and cons, what are the available options for fighting misinformation spread? (3) Is there any validity to the argument, “misinformation can be directly linked to the deaths of millions, hospitalizations of tens of millions, and physical incapacitation of hundreds of millions more?”