Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenor:
-
Michael Rabi
(The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Send message to Convenor
- Format:
- Traditional Open Panel
Short Abstract:
This panel seeks to engage different perspectives, approaches, and cases regarding dynamics, processes, and actions that pertain to 'infodemics' - information and its circulation as a threat or problem, in various domains and emergency settings (e.g. public health, security, and climate change).
Long Abstract:
Emergencies that occurred in recent years, especially COVID-19, have drawn attention to an important transition that is encompassed by ‘infomedics’, a initially coined by political analyst David J. Rothkopf, who observed during the 2003 SARS epidemic that ‘A few facts, mixed with fear, speculation and rumor, amplified and relayed swiftly worldwide by modern information technologies’, thus creating ‘a global economic and social debacle’. However, as the term evolved and spread into various contexts, it has generally referred to an uncontrolled and excessive spread of information that is false or misleadingly inaccurate, especially (but not only) through digital communication systems. Facing the problem of infodemics, various actors – from policymakers and scientists to communication specialists and ethicists – have assembled to create knowledge, regulate, monitor, and intervene on this phenomenon. From these efforts, a new form of expertise has emerged: ‘infodemiology’.
This panel invites papers that investigate, study, critique, or illuminate contemporary power dynamics, historical and political processes, and concerns and actions that relate to information and its circulation as a threat or problem in various contexts and fields, especially (though not exclusively) in settings that relate to emergency: public health, security, and climate change. The panel aims to bring together diverse theoretical perspectives, methodological approaches, and empirical cases to facilitate a nuanced, comprehensive, and critical conversation around questions such as: How did concerns with false, intentionally deceptive, or misrepresented information develop in recent years? How do such concerns differ from similar concerns throughout history? How are ‘infodemics’ constructed as threats, by whom, and towards what ends? How are those threats managed within and across national, regional, and global settings? What assumptions and values underly the understanding of infodemics and responsibility for the spread of mis/dis-information? How do emergencies drive or shape the emergence of infodemics as a problem?
Accepted papers:
Session 1Michael Rabi (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Short abstract:
I study the relationship between the legacies of pandemics/epidemics and the problematization of information through changes in the governance of public health, specifically in the cases of the International Sanitary Convention of 1944 and the creation of the 1969 International Health Regulations.
Long abstract:
Public health emergencies in recent decades, especially the COVID-19 pandemic, have highlighted the growing concern in the global health community with the problem of ‘infomedics’: the uncontrolled, excessive, or rapid spread of information that is false or misleadingly inaccurate. Attempts to address this problem have also driven the emergence of a new form of expertise: ‘infodemiology’. In this paper, I explore the relationship between the legacies of health emergency events (pandemic and epidemic) and infodemics as a problem of government. Specifically focusing on the historical cases of the International Sanitary Convention of 1944 and the creation of the 1969 International Health Regulations, I examine how politics around changes and reforms in the governance of public health influence or shape governmental perception and action with respect to information and its circulation.
Anne-Floor Scholvinck (Rathenau Instituut) Luuk Ex (Rathenau Instituut) Marit de Jong (Rathenau Instituut)
Short abstract:
Whilst many scholars are worried about the effects of the social media infodemic regarding COVID-19 on public trust in science, the evidence about the relationship is conflicting. We conduct a study on the relationship between trust in science and social media use in the Netherlands.
Long abstract:
Since the WHO dubbed the spread of false or misleading information about COVID-19 an infodemic, research into this phenomenon has spiked (Pérez Escolar et al., 2023). According to worried scholars, we should be greatly concerned about the prevalence of scientific misinformation on social media. The public distrust it causes in science, and its overall deleterious effects on society should be addressed (Agley & Xiao, 2021; Skafle et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2019). Not surprisingly, ample policy attention is devoted to containing the impact of misinformation (European Court of Auditors, 2021).
However, empirical evidence about the prevalence of misinformation on social media is conflicting and the behavioral change it might cause seems underresearched (Altay et al., 2023). In fact, scientific evidence about the relationship between distrust in science and social media use is not evident (ibid, Bogert et al., 2023). Moreover, almost all research on misinformation is conducted in the USA whilst cultural context is pivotal when measuring effect (Huber et al., 2019). Indications that interventions against misinformation may backfire, make it urgent to study the topic (Hoes et al., 2023; Van Der Meer et al., 2023)
In this project, we investigate a broad scope of factors affecting distrust in science among Dutch citizens, including social media use. Following an interdisciplinary literature study, we conduct several focus groups with people having relatively little trust in science or high social media use. This will shed light on the complicated relationship between trust in science and social media use in the Netherlands.
Eric Kennedy (York University)
Short abstract:
How do we draw the lines between what constitutes legitimate debate and misinformation? How ought this inform efforts to 'debunk' misinformation - particularly if 'experts' cannot agree on what counts as misinformation? We consider the surprisingly contested case study of misinformation in wildfire.
Long abstract:
While misinformation has always been present in wildfire, the scale and impact of recent fire seasons has created ripe conditions for rumour, conspiracy, and politically charged information. From 'space lasers' to 'equity and diversity causing conflagrations,' the spread of such misinformation has both undermined trust and been symptomatic of diminished trust between governments, fire managers, and communities. Yet, misinformation is in the eye of the beholder: what is ludicrous to one seems like an established truth to another, and what is a technical controversy to some is a case of malicious falsehoods to others.
In this presentation, we consider a recent academic paper - indeed, one of the only papers - on wildfire misinformation (Jones et al 2022), which takes a hardline stance on several open debates in fire management today. Instead of tackling prototypical examples of misinformation (such as allegations that certain fires were started as arson by political opponents), it instead alleges that holding certain views about how fires should - and should not be - managed is akin to misinformation. This offers an interesting case study on the boundaries of misinformation and conspiracy: How, exactly, do we draw the lines between what constitutes legitimate debate and what is misinformation, particularly in crisis situations? And, how ought this inform efforts to 'debunk' conspiracy theories - particularly if 'experts' cannot agree on what counts as misinformation in the first place?
Bárbara Tauffner de Souza (University of California, San Diego)
Short abstract:
Brazil's Congress proposed the Fake News Bill. Experts highlighted the Fake News Bill's vague definitions, risking misinterpretations. The study analyzes plenary discussions using Critical Discourse Analysis. Far-right deputies align with experts, contradicting their usual misinformation role.
Long abstract:
The term "infodemic," coined by the WHO in 2020 in response to coronavirus misinformation, has garnered increased research attention since the 2016 election of Trump in the US and Brexit in the UK. In Brazil, the election of Bolsonaro in 2018 marked a significant point for misinformation proliferation. Globally, efforts have been made to regulate digital platforms to mitigate this problem. Following this tendency, the Brazilian Congress proposed and discussed Bill 2630/2020, known in popular vocabulary as the Fake News Bill. Beyond addressing various aspects of the digital realm, this bill aims to establish mechanisms for content verification and accountability of digital platforms and users for the harm caused by misinformation dissemination. Criticized for lacking conceptual definitions, experts argue it may lead to misinterpretations. This research evaluates diverse political perspectives within the Brazilian Congress on Bill 2630/2020. Utilizing qualitative methods, the analysis focuses on discourses during plenary discussions. Out of 145 deputies discussing the bill, 34 were selected for in-depth analysis, contributing at least three discourses each and accounting for 54.08% of total discourses. The analytical framework applied in this study is Critical Discourse Analysis, drawing on the works of Fairclough (2001) and Van Dijk (2006, 2009). Results reveal a surprising alignment of far-right deputies with experts, contradicting their usual role in the spread of misinformation. However, it was observed that this alignment was not without its complexities, as some of the reasons behind it were rooted in conspiratorial theories, particularly related to notions of communism and censorship.
Ross Tapsell (The Australian National University)
Short abstract:
Can studying Indonesia - the world’s fourth most populous nation and third largest democracy - help us develop an infodemic ‘vaccine’? Research comes from fieldwork during the 2024 elections, including on how digital media campaigners shaped election-related discourse.
Long abstract:
The World Health Organisation defines an ‘infodemic’ via the concept of communicative abundance, or “too much information including false or misleading information in digital and physical environments”. This paper will examine to what extent the term ‘infodemic’ is useful in the context of Indonesia, the world’s fourth most populous nation and third largest democracy. Indonesia has an over- abundance of online pseudo-news sites, social media commentaries, paid influencers and buzzers, and much more. Meanwhile, independent media companies are laying off professional journalists. Has Indonesia seen serious disinformation affecting its 2024 presidential elections? Or is Indonesia’s kaleidoscopic digital public sphere countering such trends? These questions are important because digitally-driven disinformation and populism is growing, impacting the quality and health of large democracies such as the US, the Philippines, India and Brazil. Indonesia has been a largely stable democracy for over 25 years. Its independent media and freedom of expression on social media has been a key part of this largely vibrant democracy. However in recent times Indonesia’s democracy is declining, with some analysts describing the country as moving towards ‘digital authoritarianism. This paper ultimately asks: if ‘infodemiology’ is ‘the study of information and how to manage it’, studying Indonesia might lead us to develop an infodemic ‘vaccine’.