46% of Americans on TikTok follow mid-tier influencers & content creators, and only 0.4% follow journalists, pundits, and media outlets. Nearly 60% follow accounts that post about pop culture and entertainment, and 36% follow accounts that post about stories, vlogs and personal updates. Only 10% follow accounts that post about politics, and 5% that post about news.
Category: Misinformation 101
-
Pulse on TikTok (September 2024)
Americans using TikTok say they experience exposures to inaccurate or misleading information, and that the platform’s algorithm “almost exclusively” presents content that aligns with their views on political and social issues.
-
Are you in a filter bubble or an echo chamber?
It’s time to burst the (filter) bubble! 🫧
The terms “filter bubble” and “echo chamber” are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same.
Both terms refer to the tendency for your social media feed to show you things that you already like or agree with, instead of things that challenge your existing beliefs (3-7). We get a lot of our information from social media, so being in an isolated information space can make opinions more extreme (4,5) and lower resistance to misinformation (5).
Read on to learn what these terms really mean, and how prevalent they are.
Sources- Content-based filtering algorithm in social media | Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science | March 2023
- Social Media Algorithms: Why You See What You See | Georgetown Law Technology Review | December 2017
- Echo Chambers, Filter Bubbles, and Polarisation: a Literature Review | Oxford University | 2022
- Examining the interactive effects of the filter bubble and the echo chamber on radicalization | Journal of Experimental Criminology | August 2021
- The Psychology of Misinformation | Cambridge University Press | March 2024
- It’s Not the Technology, Stupid: How the ‘Echo Chamber’ and ‘Filter Bubble’ Metaphors Have Failed Us | Queensland University of Technology | July 2019
- Echo Chamber? What Echo Chamber? Reviewing the Evidence | Queensland University of Technology | September 2017
- Through the Newsfeed Glass: Rethinking Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers | Philosophy & Technology | March 2022
Share our original Bluesky post!
The terms "filter bubble" and "echo chamber" are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same. We explain the differences between these two terms here scienceupfirst.com/misinformati… #ScienceUpFirst
— ScienceUpFirst (@scienceupfirst.bsky.social) February 27, 2025 at 12:41 PM
[image or embed]View our original Instagram Post!
-
Algorithm 101
We know, it is impossible to completely escape algorithms. But what we can do is understand how they work and, above all, pay attention to how we interact with them and how they shape your online experience.
Resources
Misinformer Tactic: Stirring Up Emotions | ScienceUpFirst
Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it | ScienceUpFirst
Misinformer Tactic: Astroturfing | ScienceUpFirst
Sources- Algorithm Definition & Meaning | Merriam-Webster
- Social Media Algorithms: Why You See What You See | Georgetown Law Technology Review | December 2017
- Are You Really in Control of What You See Online, or Are Algorithms Controlling It for You? | Medium | September 2024
- Content-based filtering algorithm in social media | Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science | March 2023
- Social Media Algorithm 2025 Guide For Every Platform | StoryChief Insights
- 2024 Social Media Algorithms: A Guide for All Networks | Hootsuite | March 2024
- How Social Media Algorithms Control What You See (And How to Take Control) | by Vignesh | Medium | October 2024
- Auditing Entertainment Traps on YouTube: How Do Recommendation Algorithms Pull Users Away from News | Political Communication | April 2024
- Unveiling The Dark Side Of Social Media Algorithms – Harmful Effects On Mental Health | Brainz Magazine | October 2023
- Doomscrolling: What It Is & How to Stop | Choosing Therapy | March 2024
- Cross-national evidence of a negativity bias in psychophysiological reactions to news | PNAS | September 2019
- Why we focus on the bad stuff | ScienceUpFirst | May 2023
- Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news | Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications | Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications | October 2020
- Anger, Fear, and Echo Chambers: The Emotional Basis for Online Behavior | SAGE Journals | April 2019
- The fingerprints of misinformation: how deceptive content differs from reliable sources in terms of cognitive effort and appeal to emotions | Humanities and Social Sciences Communications | May 2022
- Social media networks, fake news, and polarization | European Journal of Political Economy | January 2023
- Twitter Bots Are a Major Source of Climate Disinformation | Scientific American | January 2021
- An analysis of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and fear mongering on Twitter | Public Health | August 2021
- From news disengagement to fake news engagement: Examining the role of news-finds-me perceptions in vulnerability to fake news through third-person perception | Computers in Human Behavior | January 2025
- Feed me: 4 ways to take control of social media algorithms and get the content you actually want | The Conversation | May 2023
Share our original Bluesky post!
What’s an algorithm? We explain the mechanics, advantages and disadvantages of algorithms here. We also get into how they shape your online experience. 👉https://scienceupfirst.com/misinformation-101/algorithm-101/ Do you have questions about algorithms? Tell us in the comments! #ScienceUpFirst
— ScienceUpFirst (@scienceupfirst.bsky.social) February 26, 2025 at 10:15 AM
[image or embed]View our original Instagram Post!
-
Exposure to detectable inaccuracies makes children more diligent fact-checkers of novel claims
Children can benefit from exposures to misinformation as it leads to increased fact-checking and evidence-seeking online activities. Authors conclude that “sanitizing children’s informational environments may inadvertently dampen their natural scepticism.”
-
How rational inference about authority debunking can curtail, sustain, or spread belief polarization
This study provides insights into when and how debunking fails to reduce polarization, and where it might instead have little to no effect, or actually increase polarization. Debunking has the greatest chance for success if it comes from organizations with an established unbiased, non-partisan, reputation, known for being committed to accuracy.
-
How to read laterally: SIFT
Do you know the difference between vertical and lateral reading? Fact-checkers use lateral reading because it is faster, more efficient, and less biased than vertical reading.
The SIFT method involves stopping, investigating the source, finding better coverage and tracing the information. We’ll summarize each point for you so you know how to SIFT.
Tip #1: After the website URL, you can add the name of the site you want to search on (e.g., Wikipedia) to find relevant pages more easily.
Tip #2: In Google Chrome, right-click an image and select “Search with Google Lens” for a quick reverse image search (24).
Remember, if you have doubts about the reliability of a source, if no other reputable media outlet is reporting the information or if you feel like something is wrong, it is best not to share it.
Would you like to know more about the SIFT method? Take a look at the CTRL-F website. You will find resources, educational materials, examples and activities to perfect your lateral reading technique.
Sources- Sifting Through the Coronavirus Pandemic | Infodemic
- Why Verify? | CTRL-F: Find the Facts
- Simple but powerful skills to evaluate online information | Digital Media Literacy – Teaching Resources
- New research shows successes in teaching ‘lateral reading’ techniques | Center for an Informed Public | December 2021
- Lateral Reading: Reading Less and Learning More When Evaluating Digital Information | SSRN | November 2019
- The ‘Sift’ strategy: A four-step method for spotting misinformation | BBC | May 2024
- SIFT (The Four Moves) | Hapgood | June 2019
- Social Media – Savvy Info Consumers | Library Guides at University of Washington Libraries
- Fighting misinformation: Why pausing before you share really works! | MediaSmarts | April 2022
- Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation | Nature Communications | April 2022
- Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online | Nature | March 2021
- Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media: Experimental Evidence for a Scalable Accuracy-Nudge Intervention | SAGE Journal | July 2020
- Misinformer Tactic: Stirring Up Emotions | ScienceUpFirst | July 2024
- Source | CTRL-F: Find the Facts
- Wikipedia: Strengths & Weaknesses | Otis College of Art & Design | January 2025
- Let’s hover! | Infodemic | February 2020
- Just add Wikipedia | Infodemic | February 2020
- Claim | CTRL-F: Find the Facts
- News search cross-check
- Trace | CTRL-F: Find the Facts
- Check the date | Infodemic | February 2020
- Click through and find | Infodemic | February 2020
- Information in a pandemic flies fast | ScienceUpFirst | June 2022
- Search with an image on Google | Computer
Share our original Bluesky post!
Fact-checkers use lateral reading because it is faster, more efficient, and less biased than vertical reading. It’s called the SIFT method. 👉 scienceupfirst.com/misinformati… Questions about the SIFT method? Ask us in the comments! #ScienceUpFirst
— ScienceUpFirst (@scienceupfirst.bsky.social) February 20, 2025 at 10:14 AM
[image or embed]View our original Instagram Post!
-
Political polarization and health
Political polarization can be related to extreme positions on social issues (“ideological”) or to showing affection for one’s group of belonging and hatred towards the opposing group (“affective”). This research on US populations shows how polarization can have significant harms on the health and well-being of individuals and collectives.
-
Fact check on fact-checkers
Not to get all “meta” but we need a fact check on fact checkers ✅
In an announcement made on January 7th, Meta CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, announced an end to fact-checking across their platform. In a video he stated that fact-checkers had “destroyed more trust than they have created”, but is there evidence to support this?
Not at all! On the contrary, there is measurable evidence that fact-checkers work! Fact-checking reduces the belief in and spread of misinformation, even among those who don’t trust the fact-checkers (1-7).
Removal of these policies can cause harm, so now more than ever it’s good to up our critical thinking game – here are 2 things to remember:
- Pause to think and ask yourself “Is this true?” before sharing. This is a simple proven way of slowing the spread of misinformation (8-12).
- Fact check for yourself, it’s easier than you think! Confirm the credibility of a source by searching through credible sources in another tab and comparing it to the original source. Fact-checkers call this “lateral reading” (13-19).
Fact-checking isn’t just for experts – it’s skills we can all use to evaluate claims and spot misinformation.
Sources- Warning labels from fact checkers work — even if you don’t trust them | MIT Sloan | September 2024
- Fact-checker warning labels are effective even for those who distrust fact-checkers | Nature Human Behaviour | September 2024
- The global effectiveness of fact-checking: Evidence from simultaneous experiments in Argentina, Nigeria, South Africa, and the United Kingdom | PNAS | September 2021
- Misinformation warning labels are widely effective: A review of warning effects and their moderating features | Current Opinion in Psychology | December 2023
- Political Misinformation and Factual Corrections on the Facebook News Feed: Experimental Evidence | The Journal of Politics | July 2022
- Cleaning Up Social Media: The Effect of Warning Labels on Likelihood of Sharing False News on Facebook | Policy & Internet | July 2019
- Journalistic interventions matter: Understanding how Americans perceive fact-checking labels | HKS Misinformation Review | April 2024
- Fighting misinformation: Why pausing before you share really works! | MediaSmarts | April 2022
- Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation | Nature Communications | April 2022
- Understanding and combatting misinformation across 16 countries on six continents | Nature Human Behaviour | June 2023
- Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online | Nature | March 2021
- Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media: Experimental Evidence for a Scalable Accuracy-Nudge Intervention | Association for Psychological Science | June 2020
- What is lateral reading?
- Expand your view with lateral reading
- Lateral Reading and SIFT – Online Research | Libraries Central Michigan University | December 2024
- Lateral Reading: Reading Less and Learning More When Evaluating Digital Information | Teachers College Record | November 2019
- Teaching lateral reading: Interventions to help people read like fact checkers | Current Opinion in Psychology | February 2024
- Lateral reading on the open Internet: A district-wide field study in high school government classes | APA PsycNet Direct | July 2022
- Teaching lateral reading: Interventions to help people read like fact checkers | Current Opinion in Psychology | February 2024
Share our original Tweet!
Fact-checking isn't just for experts – it's a skill everyone can use to evaluate claims and spot misinformation.
— ScienceUpFirst | LaScienced'Abord (@ScienceUpFirst) January 30, 2025
Read here to find out more 👉https://t.co/UMKvjBynYN#ScienceUpFirst pic.twitter.com/i6uDUgCLv6View our original Instagram Post!
-
“You started working out to get a flat stomach and a fat a$$”: A content analysis of fitspiration videos on TikTok
The majority of fitspiration videos on Tiktok contain misleading/harmful diet and exercise information and are posted by fitness influencers. Male bodies are commonly presented with a muscular ideal and female bodies with a thin and fit ideal.
-
Designing misinformation interventions for all: Perspectives from AAPI, Black, Latino, and Native American community leaders on misinformation educational effort
This research uses focus groups from non-profit organizations to examine misinformation types, impacts, and intervention strategies in Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI), Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities. It illustrates how educational strategies can be more effective by incorporating diverse media environments and by understanding and acknowledging the roots of mistrust in institutions and organizations.
-
Politically biased moderation drives echo chamber formation: An analysis of user-driven content removals on Reddit
Discussion moderators on Reddit show political bias in content removal. This finding shows that in addition to platform creators and algorithms, content moderators can play a role in the creation and maintenance of social media echo chambers.