Swine flu: Twitter's power to misinform(neteffect.foreignpolicy.com)
neteffect.foreignpolicy.com
Swine flu: Twitter's power to misinform
http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/25/swine_flu_twitters_power_to_misinform
4 comments
The problem is that education about the current situation is not reaching them very well. The author suggested that health organisations put updates online as soon and as often as possible. Injecting education into the online information stream if you will. Maybe directly into Twitter even. If some (hopefully recognised) experts were to start Twittering "pork does not kill you", the fear would be culled.
Anyway, I doubt this mass hysteria will really be all that huge if things don't get worse. The current situation is still pretty new.
Anyway, I doubt this mass hysteria will really be all that huge if things don't get worse. The current situation is still pretty new.
That article could not even quote any severely misinformed tweets. Is it being misinformed to be worried a little bit? Also, the article focused on tweets of scared users, there might be zillions of tweets by users who are not scared.
I think if anything, the whole issue might make people reflect more on things they read and hear, which would be a good thing. Other than that, the same kind of articles have probably written years ago, if you replace "twitter" with "internet" or "wikipedia".
While I don't panic, I find the whole thing interesting because I have never actually witnessed a pandemic. My first epidemic I witnessed last christmass, when the whole family suddenly had a vomitting virus. That was a bit scary. A global epidemic would therefore be really scary. Since few people have experience with this, worrying seems like a sane reaction. Or would the appropriate reaction be "I am sure the government will handle it fine, and if anything serious was going on, they would surely warn me on TV"?
I think if anything, the whole issue might make people reflect more on things they read and hear, which would be a good thing. Other than that, the same kind of articles have probably written years ago, if you replace "twitter" with "internet" or "wikipedia".
While I don't panic, I find the whole thing interesting because I have never actually witnessed a pandemic. My first epidemic I witnessed last christmass, when the whole family suddenly had a vomitting virus. That was a bit scary. A global epidemic would therefore be really scary. Since few people have experience with this, worrying seems like a sane reaction. Or would the appropriate reaction be "I am sure the government will handle it fine, and if anything serious was going on, they would surely warn me on TV"?
It is misinformed to say that you shouldn't eat pork, yes. But I don't blame the misinformed ones, as you seem to imply. I'm just thinking of solutions to help people grasp the situation better. Being afraid is - currently - somewhat an overreaction if you don't live in Mexico City. Not eating pork is probably healthy, but completely misinformed if used to ward of the pig flu.
You have a point though, when you say the article focuses on one side. Maybe there are very informed tweets and maybe people are corrected if they say something stupid.
You have a point though, when you say the article focuses on one side. Maybe there are very informed tweets and maybe people are corrected if they say something stupid.
Nobody ever said Twitter made you smarter...
I was testing this last night... The twitter search was interesting because after your first query, it dynamically updates a display with how many new results would be added if you refreshed the search. The trend for swine flu kept rapidly mounting.
I could see this alarming the average person especially if Twitter was to distinguish their brand as the ubiquitous "realtime" search.
I could see this alarming the average person especially if Twitter was to distinguish their brand as the ubiquitous "realtime" search.
You can see the chart for the trend here:
http://twist.flaptor.com/?gram=swine+flu&table=0
http://twist.flaptor.com/?gram=swine+flu&table=0
i think the author didn't really mean censorship; altering is also possible on a micro-level with users adopting a higher level of editorial standards...
This is twitter - that's like asking people to have a higher editorial standard on SMS messages to their friends.
well - how about stop sending messages if you can't trust the information you are spreading? that's what i meant by editorial standards. so yes, it's censorship of sorts, but it's more like self-censorship - or self-restraint to be more exact.
Official people should show self-restraint because they are sources of authority.
The impression I got from the article is that the author thinks Twitter users are sources of authority and that therefore some means of self-restraint or censorship is required.
There's a difference between proclaiming you a source of authority (e.g. the WHO) and people labeling you a source of authority (e.g. Twitter users).
The impression I got from the article is that the author thinks Twitter users are sources of authority and that therefore some means of self-restraint or censorship is required.
There's a difference between proclaiming you a source of authority (e.g. the WHO) and people labeling you a source of authority (e.g. Twitter users).
Twitter users are still capable of using google. So if somebody tweets about a pandemic, the next reactions of twitter users would probably be to google it. I don't think they are stupid sheep who just do whatever their twitter-friends tell them.
It is still useful information to hear that worries about a pandemic have arisen, no matter if the advice for actions is right or wrong.
It is still useful information to hear that worries about a pandemic have arisen, no matter if the advice for actions is right or wrong.
well, as we've seen, many people were re-tweeting false advice ("don't eat pork") without bothering to check anything on google...
Ah, I didn't even notice that some people seem to think it is transmitted via eating pork. But did they get retweeted a lot?
Still not convinced that it is worse than email, for example - like those meme-viri that keep spreading via email.
Still not convinced that it is worse than email, for example - like those meme-viri that keep spreading via email.
Why should they bother? Why take this more personally than when people spread false information through other means?
Twitter, as a medium, is defined by sending short messages, with neither time for second thoughts nor space for citations. Whether it's intentional or just an emergent property of its design, it's heavily skewed towards rewarding hysterical sound bites.
(The above characteristics are shared by SMS, of course.)
(The above characteristics are shared by SMS, of course.)
The most alarming statement in this article was "The question of whether we need to somehow alter our global information flows during global pandemics is not a trivial one". Fight fear with education, not with censorship.