"Infodemia, how to avoid disinformation on social networks?"

The digital communication expert and journalist Albertina Navas (Ecuador) described the “infodemic”, first of all, as “the disinformation epidemic” that spreads through the different digital channels, in parallel to the coronavirus pandemic.

The communicator, unlike "infoxication ", refers only to the information overload that exceeds our management capacity. The term "infodemic" goes further, also referring to the difficulty of discerning, within this abundance of information, "the valuable information from which it is not, and "reliable sources, from which it is not."

The context

According to the researcher, three aspects accompany the current context of "infodemic" . In the first place, there is the hypersensitivity phenomenon -that is, the habit of constructing narratives based on "extremes, that sacralize or demonize different actors in the environment", reducing them to "heroes or villains" -, which contributes to the detriment of informative balance.

Similarly, this last time has also been marked by “ atypical cycles” , in which both favorable and unfavorable information are “amplified” , as a result of the significant increase in Internet searches and publications on social networks .

Third, there is disinformation, which is not only defined by the lack of veracity of the information , but also by the intention that the latter entails , which is why Navas rather encourages the use of the terms “ pathologies or anomalies of the information ”or“ falsified news ”, when referring to what is commonly called" Fake News ".

Thus, in line with the definitions published by UNESCO and the European Union, disinformation can be described as "deliberately false information, intentionally disseminated" , which differentiates it from "erroneous information" (false information transmitted with the conviction of its truth ) and “bad information” (true information, but that which is private or restricted, which is brought to public light with the intention of causing harm).

Figures

Later, the researcher presented some data that contextualize the disinformation environment. As a sample, it disclosed that 41% of the platforms through which the “false news” are disseminated cannot be identified.

On the other hand, in the last months, the most “falsified” topics (57%) correspond to science and health topics, especially related to the topic of prevention, which generally have to do with supposed magic remedies to stop the pandemic, of the “vinegar that reduces symptoms” style.

"What really worries me is that educated people, with a supposed critical sense, share this information," added Navas, who explains that, when it is disseminated by apparently reliable and respected sources, there is a greater probability that it will be considered true, and, therefore, that it goes viral.

Likewise, the majority of "hoaxes" that are transmitted on social networks are in text format (90%), far from the belief that most of them are transmitted through videos or audios. Similarly, about 70% comes from anonymous or supplanted sources.

Protocols. How to manage negativity?

Lastly, Navas shared some tips for handling disinformation and acknowledging "fake news" before sharing it.

A first step is to verify the sources of information , often supplanted by parody accounts, which are often difficult to identify, using graphic images similar to the first ones.

The second is to investigate the resources that accompany the information , such as images and videos, for example, by performing reverse searches of images on Google or by using video verifiers such as Amnesty International, through which information can be obtained from whom uploaded them or when, through the data provided by the metadata.

Another recommendation is to check the veracity of the information on the verification sites or Fact-checking available on the network. Incidentally, Navas announced that, currently, about 100 websites of this type verify the veracity of information about COVID-19 in Latin America.

Finally, the university professor also recalled that it is important to stay up-to-date and share knowledge on the subject.

Triple Socratic Filter

Apart from this last protocol, Navas also recommended the application of the "triple Socratic filter" , which is to ask certain questions before sharing information.

This is determined, first of all, by the " truthfulness filter" (do I know this information? What source is sharing it? What evidence do I have to affirm that this is true?), Followed by the " goodness filter ” (Who benefits from this information? Is this information compassionate to the protagonists of the information?).

As an example of this last aspect, she cited the images of corpses in the city of Guayaquil that were disseminated through social networks last March, which although in many cases they were true, according to the presenter "were not necessarily compassionate with pain of the affected families ”,“ dignified their situation ”or“ treated them from a humanizing angle ”.

The third is the "utility filter" (How do you contribute this information to the protagonists of the information and the audience?).

Finally, the SIGNIS Ecuador member asked attendees to reflect on a quote by the American researcher Bruce McComiskey, who affirms that currently the audiences are no longer looking for information on which to base their opinions, but rather, opinions that support their beliefs.

"Now people are no longer interested in what is true or not, but to validate their point," explained Navas. "That is why I invite you, as communicators, not to fall into this deception and, rather, to guide our audiences and those close to counteract this disinformation," he concluded.

The virtual discussion was part of the cycle of online talks "To build the future in the midst of the pandemic" that SIGNIS ALC, SIGNIS Ecuador and the Ecuadorian Commission of Justice and Peace organize every fifteen days through Zoom and Facebook Live. To review the full talk with Albertina Navas, enter here.

Drafting SIGNIS ALC