Debunking and Prebunking: How to Fight Misinformation 

So, for non-specialists, don't feed the trolls.

it must be noted that most of the methods dealt with in this series are effective against misinformation, not disinformation, where almost nothing may work...But, for disinfo, 'don't feed the trolls' dictum applies more...

I'd recommend publishing the videos directly on facebook and instagram and other places attempting build video watching platforms. It's sad, but I'm pretty sure the youtube links posted on facebook are immediately deranked by Facebook algorithm and shared very narrowly on that platform (which is honestly a great place to show a video like this). I know it's a pain but would love to be able to reshare this in a place where others could see.

Question everything. Trust no entity. We've been lied to constantly.

it's unfortunate that appeals to expert opinion and scientific consensus in the debunking part specifically make it harder to get information to some people :/

Love this! thank you

I feel...engaged!

"The quality of information shared by those users improved by nearly 5%" - what does that even mean?

We do want Netflix length episodes! The snippets are nice but so is complete information.

Media literacy needs to be a required class in high school.

Thanks for the information sir.

I for one would welcome a Netflix-length episode.

Who decides which science becomes "THE science?" The experts were very wrong on life-threatening issues, and the "misinformation" (that was banned on social media) turned out to be the truth. Of course, inclined individuals could read the actual peer-reviewed studies and use critical thinking to draw good conclusions, but the "experts" were spreading the actual misinformation, and many of the peer-reviewed studies were obviously paid for to sway public opinion in a particular direction. For example, they determined that someone sneezing openly through the air (like in the movie theater scene from "Outbreak") would be worse than someone sneezing into a mask, therefore, everyone should wear a mask (as if nobody knows to not sneeze up into the air for maximum hang time).

Honestly, each episode in this series feels at least a few minutes too short. Good work, hope there's more to come like this.

Funny how it’s taken for granted that truth is always on our side

Love this but most studies debunk the idea that exposing someone to counterfactual evidence produces a backfire effect. Each attempt has the effect of pushing someone in the right direction just in a very small way that does not have a lasting effect over time. Thats why it’s always important to repeat the message at length, to continue this effect and have it add up over time. Thats also why propaganda, conspiracy theories, and most persuasive rhetoric rely on constant repetition of information. Thats how people are persuaded to begin with, if we only became more entrenched when we heard counterfactual information, no one would be able to be persuaded at all because they would experience a backfire effect and become less willing to have their minds changed. Lewandowsky, Cook, and Lombardi, “Debunking Handbook 2020 Wood and Porter, “The Elusive Backfire Effect.” (2019) Broockman and Kalla, “The Impacts of Selective Partisan Media Exposure.” (2022)

Or people could just think for themselves.

Adding a comment to show engagement.

So important to let people know!

Netflix documentary please!

Thankfully, here is one piece of advice, don't spend a lot of time on social media. Personally, I will get bored with social media and go do something else, such as looking up information on jet engines or COVID-19. Looking it up on a search engine should make sure that my information leans to be more correct.

4

4 the algorithm! 👍👍👍👍

Debate and public discourse should always be encouraged.

what does one do when the "consensus" and "experts" have burned all their credibility on the pyre of politics?

The messages being laid out in this video are precarious at best. 1. The prebunking model that's put forth presupposes that the model's understandings are correct. What if the model believed that masking doesn't inhibit the spread of viruses, and worked instead to "vaccinate" me from that false belief? How would I verify that the model's assumptions are correct? That's exactly the information that we want to verify. 2. Not engaging with misinformation doesn't get rid of it. The cure for misinformation is education. One form of education can involve a back-and-forth discussion in the comments section of a social media platform. Not engaging with a belief that you think is incorrect is a sign of contempt, which in my mind outlines the pompousness of the person who's unwilling to engage in discussion. Sort of an attitude of "I'm right, I know I'm right, and you're not worthy of being engaged with." It's difficult to reach people when you have the presumption of guilt. More embarrassingly, you might be the one who's incorrect. 3. No one person or organization can identify precisely what information is misinformation because no one person or organization never contributes misinformation. Every belief or opinion, whether or not it is accurate, stands or falls based on its own merits, not based upon what one person or organization is conjecturing. That goes for the WHO, the CDC, and all the other public health organizations. They are just as imperfect as you and I. Believing them without question is not scientific. As far as I'm concerned, the data always comes down to the actual nitty gritty of the studies that uncover small bits of information that lead to healthier ways of living. Almost nobody has the intellectual capability or takes the time to read and understand these studies in detail. Hence, we're all projecting generalized opinions, perhaps none of which are factually accurately aligned with the actual world for which we live. And perhaps the creator won't engage with me because my comments are so far out of line that I'm not worthy of taking the time to dispute.

Whatever happened to the vlogbrothers' strategy of adding a sign - I think it was a plus - to up the engagement figures?

wash all that 'misinformation' out of people's brains.

So what happens when today's misinformation becomes tomorrow's truth?

I don't have any hope. I live in a rural former swing state, formerly known for it's common sense and education system, where my political party has handed over control of all but the few largest urban areas, to the Trumpers, on a silver platter. We can look at a person's chromosome structure under a microscope just as easily as we can scan the sky with telescopes and satellites, yet we treat people's desired gender the same as others treat the belief in an invisible kingdom in the sky run by a 2000 year old virgin-birthed karmah zombie and his dad. We blame violence committed by people suffering from mental health crises on inanimate objects and not the lack of mental health resources or the inability to force people in crisis to get the help the need. We tell kids that it's perfectly normal to be in inescapable debt just to have "the college experience". We do all this and wonder how anyone could possibly vote for an obvious lifelong proven conman. So no, I don't live in the hope neighborhood.

You need to speak at a constant volume. This video has your voice ducking badly at the end of some sentences. I can't understand your mumbling. The overall sound amplitude is too low in this video. Please put more effort into the audio quality of these videos. The content is already spectacular and they deserve it!

There's a well publicized replication issue in science. But if someone is skeptical, they need to just "trust the science".

If the correct thing to do is not engage, does that mean the premise of this channel is wrong? I'm guessing I should not be posting this question either, oh well, C'est la guerre!

How do you fight the medical establishment when they lie about obesity? They have nothing more than correlation and plenty of contradictory evidence but they insist that obesity causes bad outcomes. It seems they have never heard of the Bradford Hill criteria.

What happens if you come to realize the consensus and experts are wrong or worse? What if all that you thought comes to pass and hindsight shows you were correct via the experts you followed and the consensus groups that threatened the scientists you followed were wrong. I noticed in your debunking it mentions a easily understandable alternative explanation. Well i sure noticed a surplus of simple explanations when the science i was looking at was not as SIMPLIFIED. So i have to ask was that simplified science for those who are appeased easily with simple answers, in times of stress people often just want to be told what to do to alleviate stress. Prebunking? Seems like you give wrong answer on purpose and then lead people to the consensus answer. What if the consensus answer from these groups is incorrect or have motives that hold corporate interests first and foremost. What if gov't bodies are merely captured regulatory bodies....captured by the corporations or corporate donors that seem to dominate our political systems? Debunking also seems to imply people are stupid and need to be told how to think critically. Love your example of how we may see a inaccurate story but brush that aside if it does not conform to the group of our dominant social group. Very interesting, so if you spent 100 k and eight years in school plus a decade on climbing the ladder within medical institutions would you jeopardize it all by questioning or going against your peer / social group in your industry. Especially if your license was threatened? I would guess few would. Oh so i sound like a reasonable person.....don't engage with me, just trust in the science. Not asking you to take my word for it, look at the science and how many people are saying NO to bivalent vaccines. Even the average person figured out much of covid was not as portrayed. Also seems to imply don't think again....... Your whole premise starts with we understand everything, does not ask for engagement from others and science is a consensus, just trust us. Does not sound like science, sounds like a sales pitch that leaves people within our communities in danger due to consensus by the said groups above i now doubt STRONGLY.

Prebunking could be seen as propaganda. Most misinformation is rooted in rumors, which grow as a result of a void in the truth .

You mean lies not misinformation what is with you people trying to be nice it's freaking lies that's what it is not misinformation it's downright freaking lies