Several high-profile sources have focused worldwide attention on the dangers of misinformation about COVID, with the World Health Organization declaring a COVID-19 social media ``infodemic''. Prior work has associated such misinformation with low-credibility sources that are known to spread conspiracy theories and malicious content.5, 6 Here, we report the results of an analysis of over 500 million social media posts from Twitter and Facebook  between March 8 and May 1, 2020. We find that messages about COVID-19 are more likely to come from high quality sources , with clearer provenance, when compared to other health topics. Low-credibility sourceswere less likely to post about COVID-19, with the important exception of state-sponsored propaganda outlets on Twitter. Finally, a known conspiracy theory was more likely to be ``laundered'' through social media platforms than low-credibility news sources . In contrast, misinformation reflecting legitimate scientific uncertainty was primarily discussed by credible news sources . These results suggest that the social media discourse reflects an attempt to come to grips with deep scientific uncertaintyduring an emerging pandemic, with significant content emanating from unrated; not low credibility, sources. When low-quality content is generated by these unrated sources, they may be amplified by high-credibility sources inadvertently lending them credibility .
On February 2, 2020, the World Health Organization declared a COVID-19 social media "infodemic", with special attention to misinformation -- frequently understood as false claims. To understand the infodemic's scope and scale, we analyzed over 500 million posts from Twitter and Facebook about COVID-19 and other health topics, between March 8 and May 1, 2020. Following prior work, we assumed URL source credibility is a proxy for false content, but we also tested this assumption. Contrary to expectations, we found that messages about COVID-19 were more likely to contain links to more credible sources. Additionally, messages linking to government sources , and to news with intermediate credibility, were shared more often, on average, than links to non-credible sources. These results suggest that more ambiguous forms of misinformation about COVID-19 may be more likely to be disseminated through credible sources when compared to other health topics. Furthermore, the assumption that credibility is an adequate proxy for false content may overestimate the prevalence of false content online: less than 25\% of posts linking to the least credible sources contained false content. Our results emphasize the importance of distinguishing between explicit falsehoods and more ambiguous forms of misinformation due to the search for meaning in an environment of scientific uncertainty .
R
Several high-profile sources have focused worldwide attention on the dangers of misinformation about COVID, with
On February 2, 2020,
R
declaring
declared
R
``infodemic''. Prior work has associated such misinformation with low-credibility sources that are known to spread conspiracy theories and malicious content.5, 6 Here, we report the results of an analysis of
"infodemic", with special attention to misinformation -- frequently understood as false claims. To understand the infodemic's scope and scale, we analyzed
D
social media
A
about COVID-19 and other health topics,
R
We find
Following prior work, we assumed URL source credibility is a proxy for false content, but we also tested this assumption. Contrary to expectations, we found
R
are
were
R
come from high quality sources
contain links to more credible sources. Additionally, messages linking to government sources
R
with clearer provenance, when compared to other health topics. Low-credibility sourceswere less likely to post about COVID-19, with the important exception of state-sponsored propaganda outlets on Twitter. Finally, a known conspiracy theory was more
and to news with intermediate credibility, were shared more often, on average, than links to non-credible sources. These results suggest that more ambiguous forms of misinformation about COVID-19 may be more
R
``laundered'' through social media platforms than low-credibility news sources . In contrast, misinformation reflecting legitimate scientific uncertainty was primarily discussed by credible news sources . These results suggest that the social media discourse reflects an attempt to come to grips with deep scientific uncertaintyduring an emerging pandemic, with significant content emanating from unrated; not low credibility, sources. When low-quality content is generated by these unrated sources, they may be amplified by high-credibility sources inadvertently lending them credibility
disseminated through credible sources when compared to other health topics. Furthermore, the assumption that credibility is an adequate proxy for false content may overestimate the prevalence of false content online: less than 25\% of posts linking to the least credible sources contained false content. Our results emphasize the importance of distinguishing between explicit falsehoods and more ambiguous forms of misinformation due to the search for meaning in an environment of scientific uncertainty