A broader view of misinformation reveals potential for intervention

Abstract

Misleading claims from credible sources can be more damaging than blatant falsehoods Misinformation is viewed as a threat to science, public health, and democracies worldwide ( 1 ). Experts define misinformation as content that is false or misleading, such that it contains some facts but is otherwise manipulative ( 2 , 3 ). Yet, the importance of this distinction has remained unquantified. On pages 978 and 979 of this issue, Allen et al . ( 4 ) and Baribi-Bartov et al . ( 5 ), respectively, report on the impact of misinformation on social media. Allen et al . find that Facebook content not flagged as misinformation but still expressing misleading views on vaccinations had a much bigger effect on vaccination intentions compared with outright falsehoods because of its greater reach. Baribi-Bartov et al . investigate who is responsible for spreading misinformation about voting on X (previously Twitter), identifying highly networked citizens (“supersharers”) who supply about a quarter of the fake news received by their followers. These findings highlight new ways to intervene in misinformation propagation.