Category: Misinformation 101

Five years ago, organizations throughout the world were making commitments to diversity, inclusion, equity and accessibility (DIEA) (12). Today, there is a backlash towards DIEA policies, with many being rolled back (13). But these terms are often misrepresented and misunderstood. 

We break it down for you ☝️

Though some organizations are leaning away, our team is leaning in. Why? Because we know the evidence points towards teams being stronger and science working better when diverse perspectives are included (14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21).

Bonus Definitions 📝

• Bias: The conscious (explicit) or unconscious (implicit) opinion, preference, prejudice, or inclination formed without reasonable justification that prevents a balanced or even-handed judgement (6). 
• Stigma: Stigma is defined as negative attitudes, beliefs, or behaviours about or toward an individual or group of people because of a characteristic they share. Stigma can include stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination (22).

Share if you think these terms are getting a bad rap. 

A big thank you to IDEA-STEM (@idea_stem) and Ingenium’s (@ingeniumcanada) truth, reconciliation, equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility (TREDIA) team for reviewing this post.

You’re browsing social media absentmindedly (is there any other way?) and you notice your mom sharing what you believe is obvious misinformation. Maybe it’s an AI-generated video; maybe it’s a long debunked myth about vaccines; maybe it’s long-withheld information about Bigfoot.

You also know that you will be seeing your mom tomorrow for dinner and it will inevitably come up. 

Is it worth addressing? Is it likely to sour your dinner with her? Is there a risk of spreading harmful misinformation? These are all relevant questions that many of us have to deal with. Some ways of dealing with these situations are more productive than others (13).

And you? How have you reacted to similar situations?

When someone believes something that’s inaccurate, our first instinct is often to correct it with facts. But that doesn’t always work like we hope it would. 

Most people don’t like to be contradicted – especially if they care deeply about the topic. Plus, it’s not always easy to find the right words in the moment. You might know something sounds off, but might not have the right facts or numbers to explain why. Even experts sometimes need time to fact-check and respond clearly (1,2,3).

That’s where bypassing can come in handy.

Instead of arguing about what’s false, bypassing shifts the focus from the false information toward a new, more positive alternative (1,2,4).

For example, instead of saying, “No, vaccines don’t cause X,” you might say: “Vaccines have saved millions of lives and reduced childhood mortality worldwide.” (5). 

By bypassing misinformation, you avoid confrontation and shift the conversation toward something about the same topic that is both accurate and positive (2,3,4). 

But, keep in mind that, bypassing doesn’t aim to correct specific misconceptions or deeply held beliefs. And in some cases – like public health emergencies – a direct correction might still be your best tool. So before jumping in, ask yourself: What’s my goal here? Is it to prove that “vaccines don’t cause harm”? Or to reinforce that “vaccines save lives”? While the first might call for a correction, the second might benefit from bypassing (2,4). 

Bypassing (1,4): 
• Avoids making people feel attacked. 
• Redirects the conversation toward shared values or outcomes. 
• Makes space for more than one idea to co-exist – you can hold concerns, while also recognizing the benefits of something. 

By bypassing misinformation you are not erasing a false belief, but you are helping build up an alternative one, and that shift in focus can make a big difference (1,2,4).

Just because a story is repeated does not make it true.

Firehose of falsehood, or firehosing, is a propaganda technique that aims to confuse and overwhelm the audience with continuous, rapid, and repetitive messaging over multiple platforms. The messaging is often false, or composed of half-truths and lacks consistency and objectivity (1).

This tactic is used by Russian president Vladimir Putin (1), U.S. president Donald Trump (2), but also by anti-vaccine groups to spread misinformation about vaccines (3).

It works because it uses a number of varied sources to spread its lies (4,5), as well as tapping into our needs for conformity (6). When you see something being shared by multiple sources, you are more likely to think it is true (1). With firehosing, the lies don’t even have to be believable because the goal is not to persuade, but to bombard people with so much information they become too overwhelmed to fact-check everything (3).

The best way to counter-attack firehosing is to be aware of the tactic (3), keep reporting false content to disrupt the disinformation’s flow (3), and share evidence-based information instead of getting into comment wars refuting misinformation (1).

Many thanks to Jordan Collver for collaborating with us on this project! Check out his work on his website (jordancollver.myportfolio.com) and on Twitter (@JordanCollver)