Category: Misinformation 101

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)

This fallacy is sneaky because it “feels” fair (8). But it’s misleading (2,4,5,7,8):

• It gives both arguments the same weight, even when only one is supported by science (read more about the false balance bias – 9). Raw chicken can carry harmful bacteria like Salmonella and Campylobacter, and the only way to kill it is by cooking the meat thoroughly.
• It assumes that the middle ground is always the best answer – but “a little pink” is still unsafe.
• It ignores the possibility that other, better solutions might exist.
• It can encourage people to present radical or false claims, hoping others will settle on a “reasonable” middle, which would still include misinformation.

Sometimes, finding a compromise is helpful. But when it comes to facts, “meeting in the middle” isn’t always the best – or the most accurate – solution (2,4,5,7,8).

To avoid falling for it (6):

• Ask: Is there evidence for both sides?
• Evaluate each claim on its own, not just where it sits on a spectrum.
• Remember: half-truths can still be harmful.

Truth isn’t always found halfway between two opinions. Sometimes, it’s firmly on one side.

Social Media Bots can be designed for different purposes (2,11,19): 

• Click/Like Farming: Bots boost an account’s popularity by generating fake likes or reposts.
• Hashtag Highjacking: Bots use popular hashtags to spread spam or malicious content.
• Repost Storm: A lead bot shares content, triggering a coordinated reposting attack by a bot network.
• Trend Jacking: Bots exploit trending topics to spread their message or target an audience.
• Astroturfing: Bots can throw their weight behind different issues to artificially inflate the perception of support.

There are detection tools online that can help you identify X bot accounts (e.g. Bot-o-Meter, Twitter Audit, Bot Sentinel) (18).

If you think you have found a bot, report it and block it (20). By reporting bot accounts and removing them from your followers list, you can limit the spread of misinformation, but also potentially boost your account as engagement on your posts will now be more genuine (16). 

Have you spotted bots in the wild? How did you know they were bot accounts? Let us know!