52 thoughts on “Online communities, echo chambers and the anti-vaccine movement.”

1. Hi David, Interesting paper, although I was a little disappointed you didn’t talk about the anti-vaccine movement in more detail as your title suggested. Interesting article in MedPage Today (25 April 2019) agreeing with your statement that “inaccurate and misleading information about vaccines” is contributing to the number of people who have chosen not to vaccinate their children. It appears from the article that despite totally eradicating measles in 2000 in the US , that they are now experiencing the highest levels of the disease in 25 years. They also reported that measles cases worldwide have risen 300% up to March this year. Perhaps as you state there should be more censorship of social media sites to ensure that this sharing of misinformation does not continue and put more lives at risk, even if this does impact on a person’s freedom of speech.

   Walker, M. (25 April 2019). Retrieved from https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/publichealth/79421

   Reply

   1. Hi Jane,
      That article is a great find.

      I think the problem is not necessarily misinformation alone, although this is a major factor. There is also the problem of misinterpretation of information. Reports that measles had been “eliminated” may well have led people to believe the disease had been “eradicated” and that vaccinations against measles were no longer necessary.

      See this earlier report from The Washington Post cited below. The history of the dissemintation and interpretation of a message, especially via social media, is fascinating. Chinese whispers played on a global scale…

      Berman, M. (2015, 23 January). How the U.S. went from eliminating measles to a measles outbreak at Disneyland. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/01/23/how-the-u-s-went-from-eliminating-measles-to-a-measles-outbreak-at-disneyland/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3111a226f113

      Reply

      1. I like how this article highlights the problem of travellers who may affect the spread of diseases. It certainly raises some interesting questions as to how people approach disease statistics online, and how they’re received by others. Having come back from Europe recently I noticed Australian customs asked some indirect questions relating to disease control from areas that had recent outbreaks, but nothing specific. Perhaps if there was more of a social media aspect by governments backed up by research, potential carriers could be alerted and educated as they arrive/depart?

         Reply

      2. That’s very true. Another problem I noticed while writing this paper is that many people who feel as though they were knowledgeable about the topic of vaccines often got their information third hand ie from a YouTube, a blogger, a celebrity, etc and these personalities were usually bias in the way they interpreted information.
         Very rarely did anyone take the time to do the research themselves or to seek out the study to read it themselves.

         Reply

         1. That’s interesting, hadn’t thought about social media such as YouTube or celebrities being sources that people turn to. Makes me wonder what we define as social media and how that affects the ways we receive information.

            Reply

         2. It’s worth noting too that this applies as much to the anti-vaccine camp as to the pro-vacciners. Very few people are conducting their own research, but instead rely on the information provided by their doctors, health professionals, the media and their communities. In most cases this is probably fine, but as you mention above, when reports are being made incorrectly that a disease has been ‘eradicated’ this can lead to issues in itself. It’s important that we don’t let the morality of the issue and the passion that we often feel for matters like vaccination to get in the way of the truth, and this applies just as much to the pro as the anti camp. Thanks for the reminder!

            Reply

            1. That’s also very true; how much we take at face value from professionals. Worth having a healthy level of skepticism!

            2. Hey Tracey,

               I believe that’s true in many aspects. People tend to look towards authority figures to get their information and trust in that person almost to a fault.
               People look to Jim Carey for anti-vaccine information and seem to believe that because someone who has status believes this, there must be merit to it.
               The person does not even have to be famous, maybe they just run a mildly successful YouTube channel.

   2. Hi JJose,

      That article is quite interesting, especially the point about the 300% rise in outbreaks, vastly outstripping the rate of infections at the same point the year before, a trend that correlates with the rising popularity and spread of the anti-vaxxer movement. I am hesitant however as to whether the topic should be censored, as I believe that is always problematic given the question of who censors what, as it raises freedom of speech issues and could be a bit Orwellian.

      Interestingly the WHO recently classed the anti-vaxxer movement or “Vaccine Hesitancy” as one of the top ten threats to global health in 2019, which further highlights the importance of education and inclusion to positive messages and not echoes of negative or ill-informed misinformation.

      Reply

   3. Hey Jose,

      Yes, I totally agree. I did originally have 1-2 paragraphs detailing the history of the anti-vaccine movement but it did not make the word limit unfortunately.
      Thanks for sharing that source. One thing that I did notice while researching this paper is just how easy it is to research online and find out the truth about vaccines from the actual papers themselves. Being feels by the anti-vaccine movement doesn’t seem to come from a lack of knowledge, it comes from a rejection of knowledge.

      Reply

2. David
   I am lucky enough to have a family GP who posts medical related information on Facebook and he posted the MedpageToday link.

   Reply

   1. I have just read your Berman (2015) article and wonder if the answer to the problem is perhaps to have people who want to travel provide proof of up to date immunisations? Maybe this would stop these diseases that have supposedly been controlled and prevent them entering countries with little or no cases?

      I have also just read another interesting article, which although not related to Facebook or social media says that people in remote areas of Afghanistan are distrustful of the polio eradication program that the World Health Organisation have put in place as they think that its just a ploy to spy on them as a fake program was run to try and find Osama Bin Laden (Birtley, 2019).

      Birtley, T. (, 3 February 2019). Distrust of polio vaccine plagues Afghanistan. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/distrust-polio-vaccine-plagues-afghanistan-190203051158872.html

      Reply

      1. Hey Jose,

         I don’t see any reason why this would be seen as a bad idea. Maybe the only major objection would be that people trying to travel from less well off areas may not be able to afford the vaccine.

         I think if a country has a right to defend itself from the attack of foreign nations then it should have the right to protect itself against easily fought diseases like measles. Maybe your vaccine record could be shown via an official stamp on your passport?

         Reply

3. Hi David
   I found you paper absolutely fascinating in not only it’s analysis of how social media is creating groups of people who are not only just communities within themselves promoting their own misinformation and only surrounding themselves with arguments that support their own theories, but how this is permeating into the wider networks and communities.
   Having read both this paper and David’s paper on the Brexit vote it has prompted me to do some more research on the profusion of bots and trolls throughout social. And how they have become a serious problem for spreading misinformation and destabilising all the networks.

   Besides human beings being part of the problem there are studies that have also identified how digital technologies have permeated through social to also create the problem, of particular concern is Russia’s influence again in using online to clearly and dangerously destabilise communities, this time targeting vaccination. In a study last year ‘Weaponized Health Communication: Twitter Bots and Russian Trolls Amplify the Vaccine Debate’. They analyse online antivaccine sentiment and posts and come up with some alarming discoveries.

   ‘Some of this information is motivated: skeptics use online platforms to advocate vaccine refusal. Antivaccine advocates have a significant presence in social media, with as many as 50% of tweets about vaccination containing antivaccine beliefs….Much health misinformation may be promulgated by “bots”—accounts that automate content promotion—and “trolls”—individuals who misrepresent their identities with the intention of promoting discord. One commonly used online disinformation strategy, amplification, seeks to create impressions of false equivalence or consensus through the use of bots and trolls.’

   There has until now been little research and the health community has really focused on combating the content rather than identifying and targeting the source. I wonder if this is now a point in time where they turn their attention to this. It is good to finally see the social media channels being held to account and asked to remove content but perhaps our only hope is to tackle the source, however unwieldy that might seem. And of course, where do you draw the line between that age old argument of freedom of speech for the antivaccine movement who believe their own misguidance. Do they still have the right for a place to have a forum? Where do we draw the line in what is then influence over others?

   Part of their research also reviewed #VaccinateUS which is a Twitter account backed by the IRA (International Research Agency) a ‘company backed by the Russian government specializing in online influence operations’. They have been linked to the Trump election and Russian social media influence during that time. This # was used to promote discord, using the pro and anti-vaccine argument as a political tool. Again another of Russia’s way of continuing to destabilise the West. As the research suggests health communications has now become ‘weaponised’. This is absolutely frightening in my mind, vaccination is just one of many ways they could potentially use social media and other online platforms to provide misinformation and misconceptions on public health issues.

   Did you have any further thoughts on how this might be tackled, Russia’s influence has been catalogued and promoted across all media and yet people are still taken in by it.
   I would highly recommend reading the research as I found the results quite staggering and the use of #VaccinateUS to promote such discourse across so many sensitive and highly emotive issues, linking vaccination to race, gender, economic status, government and institutions shows how sophisticated anti-establishment bots, trolls, malware etc. are becoming.

   Broniatowski, D. A., Jamison, A. M., Qi, S., AlKulaib, L., Chen, T., Benton, A., … Dredze, M. (2018). Weaponized Health Communication: Twitter Bots and Russian Trolls Amplify the Vaccine Debate. American journal of public health, 108(10), 1378–1384. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567

   Reply

   1. Hi Stephanie,

      It’s somewhat startling just how invasive bots and malware via social media is becoming, especially when it influences people en masse. I think part of the problem is the issue of intangibility online, and how that usually differs to offline, coupled with sensationalist media groups.

      For example (warning: suicide themes), the Momo challenge originated from a sculpture called Momo by Japanese artist Keisuke Aiso as a special effects project, however it developed into an urban legend where people could message a Spanish WhatsApp number for instructions or “dares” that see them engage in risky behaviour. The phone number(s) were never confirmed, however it was enough for various outlets and social media trolls (Twitter, Facebook and Instagram) to deem the challenge as a real issue, going so far as to claim that imagery of Momo was being inserted into otherwise innocuous material such as Peppa Pig and Fortnite and causing children to commit suicide.

      For a brief period the Momo challenge was considered to be a grave health threat to young people on social media, until Aiso publicly verified that it was in fact a SFX project and nothing more.

      I believe part of the solution to misinformation, trolling and the spread of misguided information on social media lies in education; making things more tangible and thus more questionable. If people keep a healthy level of skepticism even in their own supposed safe spaces online then the issue of misinformation and trolling can be challenged. Perhaps more sites need to strengthen their acceptable use policies, or indeed allow those who use and thus shape the spaces to have a say in what’s acceptable and what’s not? Difficult given the issues of free speech and echo chambers.

      Mikkelson, D. (2019, February 26). How Much of a Threat Is the Purported ‘Momo Challenge’ Suicide Game? Retrieved May 5, 2019, from https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/02/26/momo-challenge-suicide-game/

      Reply

      1. Your example is interesting, and raises a couple of questions about how to manage what is fact and fiction online when it comes to some of these urban myths. I have a young son and so will soon be having conversations about online content and when to come and tell us what he is seeing that is upsetting or of concern on the internet. Therein lies another paper on the future of social and our children!

         I think you are right with regards to the solution, I’m more for education as I think that if the governments are are part of the problem when it comes to utilising the automated tools to spread information across the internet, are not going to put pressure on social media companies than who is? I would prefer that those sites worked harder to prevent this kind of spamming of information, otherwise being solely reliant on the user to make an informed decision is like asking the general population to not believe what is written in the tabloid press. And we all know how influential they are on public opinion and decision making.
         It is frightening how we have become less and less skeptical with what we see online. We need a reality check!

         Reply

         1. I believe the next couple of generations will definitely benefit from having parents who’ve navigated the Internet, as for my generation (I’m 26) at least it was very much a journey of self-discovery, not all of it good! And definitely, there is a lot of research potential for this.

            You’re right about the education issue for sure. People absorb content online, mostly (somewhat ironically) at face value, which reminds me of a project (the source of which eludes me unfortunately) about an algorithm that systematically finds the threshold at which users can discern fake and real news, i.e. it starts off with obviously fake stories and then slowly adjusts them until they’re on the cusp of being believable. Scary stuff!

            Reply

      2. Ah yes, the Momo fad. Part of that problem was that some journalists were printing articles without cross checking facts which also caused a feedback loop and a bit of hysteria.

         As I said to a friend the other day, I grew up believing that some news media was to be trusted and some weren’t however even some of those that I was taught to trust I now no longer do. So my question is, were my elders wrong in their assessment or has journalism devolved in the last 40 years?

         Reply

         1. Definitely. It all got out of control extremely quickly, and your point about the feedback loop is spot on – non-stop hysteria!

            Maybe a little of column A, maybe a little of column B? I had a similar upbringing with the ABC being the one true source, but nowadays I’m much the same – a grain of salt with everything.

            Reply

         2. unfortunately there are branches of the media today who have forgone actual research in favour of trawling facebook and reddit and just copying what they find verbatim. Daily Mail and Kidspot are huge offenders, and I cringe every time I see a new article from either of these, and even more so when I see them shared on facebook as ‘fact’.

            Reply

            1. I haven’t heard of Kidspot, but I avoid Daily Mail like the plague due to the source issues.

            2. As a regular reddit user I can’t disagree with that. News.com.au are another offender. I’ve never heard of kidspot though.

      3. Hey Joel and Stephanie,

         I think another problem along the same lines as treating things we see online with skepticism is the fact that a lot of people who are present online rarely take the time to truly look into a news story or article and choose instead to read online a summary or headline.

         This article from the Washington post dives into a study done by the American Press Institute found:
         “Fewer Americans invest additional time into following the news more in-depth. The survey asked people about going in-depth for news two different ways. It asked whether people generally tried to get news in-depth on any subject in the last week. It also asked, when they recalled a breaking news story they followed in the last week, whether they had tried to find out more about it after initially learning of it.

         Overall, 41 percent of Americans report that they watched, read, or heard any in-depth news stories, beyond the headlines, in the last week. Slightly more people, 49 percent, report that they invested additional time to delve deeper and follow up on the last breaking news story they followed.”

         So roughly 6 in 10 people acknowledge that they have not followed up on a story thoroughly and report to only read the headlines. We already know that headlines are often written for the purpose of attracting clicks and do play up the significance of stories. But to find out that people are also taking these salacious headlines as gospel is quite concerning.

         Reply

         1. That’s a really interesting point, and is something that I’ve found via incidental research. We live in an economy which demands attention as a commodity, and given the deluge of information people feel overwhelmed enough to not engage as much as there is simply too much to process. I wonder if this is the reason why a lot more fake news is able to spread?

            Reply

   2. Hi Stephanie and David,
      Great paper David!
      The link with Russia and the anti – vax movement is deeply concerning Stephanie, thanks for sharing. Russia seems to be specialising in the propagation of “fake news” and misinformation – and is targeting western countries in order to destabilize them and in this case maximum harm to the public (See the EAVI link on the different types of ‘Fake News’). We have seen the Russian taking a leading role in trying to misinform voters and influence democratic outcomes in the UK and the US. It seems an information war is playing out online – is this the new way battles of the future will take place?

      This leads me on to the question, of how Social Media companies are monitoring their sites and how effective that monitoring is to prevent this information from being seen. According to Ellen Silver, VP of Operations at Facebook they have 30,000 staff in every timezone “a mix of full-time employees, contractors and companies we partner with” covering 50 languages. These staff are based in Countries like the Philippines, Germany, Spain, Latvia, Ireland, Portugal, the US.

      The news release goes into great depth into the steps Facebook is taking to combat online harms. But is it enough? I note the release was prior to the Christchurch attack, and we saw how ineffectual social media has been in removing white nationalist inspired content prior to this point. It is as if they wait for something bad to happen before they do anything. What is the next tragedy to unfold before action is taken?

      In terms of the Anti-Vax movement and use of Social media to spread misinformation about vaccines. Is it time that social media platforms start displaying health warnings similar to tobacco companies. Is using social media bad for your health? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

      https://eavi.eu/beyond-fake-news-10-types-misleading-info/

      https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/07/hard-questions-content-reviewers/

      Reply

      1. Not only that but if we assume the idea of the feedback loop premise in my paper you could also make the argument that social media giants like Facebook may actually be profiting from these trolls.
         If Russia is able to infiltrate these close echo chambers and keep the community engaged by posting material that people engaged in these groups find appealing and keep them scrolling for longer periods of time. Facebook is profiting off of the spread of misinformation.

         As for what social media companies can do I’m not quite sure. I do know that one move Facebook made last year was introducing a fact-checking service (Ref 1.) to try and help combat the spread of misinformation.
         “The company will also flag images that have been posted on Facebook in a misleading context, such as, for example, a photo of a previous natural disaster or shooting that is displayed as a present-day event.”

         This also, however, raises concerns amongst some that Facebook would be able to control the conversation through this fact-checking services. Whether or not you want to give a tech giant the power to have the power to influence the direction of societies conversations is a tricky question in itself to try and answer.

         (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/21/facebook-expands-its-fact-checking-tools-but-says-its-work-will-never-be-finished/?utm_term=.63c173b8502d)

         Reply

      2. As a whole, I don’t think so however the papers in this conference and the discussions being had around identity, echo-chambers, the effects on mental health etc. certainly would have you thinking this might need to be the case.

         I might be a little idealistic in thinking that in some ways the we have to go to an extreme for people to realise the dangers and then there is a reaction that will start to right the wrongs. Mind you with our Russian friends involvement that is probably unlikely. If only we were dealing with just human beings it would be an easier argument.

         One thing that did come up this week that I thought was an interesting feed into this argument of FB and censorship and trying to do the right thing was the banning of the breast cancer campaign for nudity without substance and the TAC advert for being too graphic and gory! So even when people are trying to promote something positive and for public health FB has a policy that cannot allow those images to be shown. Mind you the amount of publicity that they had covering the story was probably more than the online campaigns would have got!

         Reply

         1. Stephanie, David and others
            As you know my paper focused on democratic outcomes and how people are being targeted by orchestrated campaigns of misinformation so that they vote a certain way.

            In my own research on Fake news in the Brexit debate, I came across a blog post about how people are consuming information and how there has been a levelling of that information so that sources and the veracity remain unchecked. I thought you might find interesting with the anti vax debate:

            Siva Vaidhyanathan, Professor of Media Studies at the University of Virginia sums up mindless consumption of news and information with clarity – the below was published on a blog post by the London School of Economics.

            …the very ubiquity of social media has in itself been an adverse development, particularly in terms of information pollution whereby all content seems equally important and reliable and it all hits you at the same time. This levelling of the information landscape and the ensuing onslaught have led to amplification of content with a strong emotional load, whether that is enthusiastic approval or equally visceral indignation. All one needs to do in order to further a message or just pollute people’s news feeds is to choose a divisive and highly emotionally-charged message.

            Certainly politics, pseudoscience, conspiracy theory fits into the above add that to the Facebook algorithm and its dissemination is almost all but guaranteed.

            I have mentioned before we need better education to inform users of the dangers of fake news and misinformation and to question what they see. But I fear this paradigm shift will I fear take decades and who knows what societal damage can be unleashed in the mean time.

            https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2018/10/04/book-review-anti-social-media-how-facebook-disconnects-us-and-undermines-democracy-by-siva-vaidhyanathan/

            Reply

4. Hi David,

   I found your paper quite interesting, especially your points about the hijacking of user’s neural chemistry, and how that can be linked to various other psychological trials that Facebook has been found to be pushing onto users, some advertised and some (insidiously) not. I also liked the structure you presented behind the continuous feedback loop to keep people on the platform and expose them to the most favouritable environment for longer interactions with the site.

   I do agree with JJose in that it would have been good to see more of a focus on the anti-vax movement itself, however there is a solid foundation that explains why a lot of echo chambers exist on social media in general, with aspects that could be applied to Twitter (e.g. only following people that you like, or via spam from robot accounts (bots)).

   An interesting point that I have found that relates to the topic of neural chemistry is another practice Facebook was found to be conducting in 2014, and how it can influence the emotions of people to react or interact with various communities. A research team led by Adam Kramer (data scientist at Facebook) altered the number of positive or negative stories in their news feed to see if their views could be altered via their posts, without seeking permission first. The study found that it was entirely possible to covertly change the way people interact with information, and how they might respond to various topics.

   This in turn could lead to artificial echo chambers to be created or misinformation to be spread, given the level of emotional manipulation present in the psychology of interactions. If one was to constantly see positive messages about the anti-vax movement and be exposed to communities that were inclusive of said positive messages, the dopamine-reward system highlighted in your paper could be subverted for negative outcomes.

   Interestingly in relation to the anti-vaxxer movement, a group of people administered in part by Melbourne virologist Dr David Hawkes has taken to Facebook to stop groups such as the Australian Vaccination-Risks Network by posting scientific refutations and memes about misinformation spread by the group, which couldn’t come at a better time given the outbreaks of measles in Australia. Discussions such as this one, your paper and other movements seem to be more essential as more misinformation spreads.

   https://www.ckn.org.au/content/russian-trolls-accused-spreading-anti-vaccine-propaganda-online

   Goel, V. (2014, June 30). Facebook Tinkers With Users’ Emotions in News Feed Experiment, Stirring Outcry. Retrieved May 5, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html

   Bogle, A. (2019, March 07). Aussies are taking on the anti-vaccination movement when Facebook won’t. Retrieved May 5, 2019, from https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-03-07/australian-volunteers-fight-anti-vaccination-facebook/10876744

   Reply

   1. I’m very much supportive of your last statement Joel and the influence that pro-vaccine supporters can have in fighting back within this social media environments. We cannot rely on just the authorities or the tech companies and this should be something that exists across many other forms of argument.
      The only issue is that in many of these situations the boundaries between the two groups never meet so they are still existing in their vacuum.
      But that should not stop those from campaigning, online forums and social media are for everyone and we should not accept that the larger voice that is doing harm to society is the only one to be heard.

      Reply

      1. Exactly – the vacuum and anonymity, where a lot of people who don’t have credentials are able to sway the public opinion. If we could make issues like these cross-over between social media groups and be more accountable then we might see an interesting direction.

         Reply

   2. I too would have loved to include more about the movement itself, however the word limit and final draft edit meant I had to make some difficult cut-backs.

      I’d never seen that study before! probably because it wasn’t technically a ‘study’ i guess, thanks so much for sharing. Its strange to look at social media as not only a tool but a drug. I have the feeling that many people tend to see it as a way to pass the time and never stop to fully understand their actions.

      Earlier this year I challenged myself to try and use my phone as little as possible for 1 week. I quickly found that I would continually reach for my phone in nearly any given situation which was pretty shocking to me as I thought I didn’t have that bad a problem.

      Reply

      1. That’s understandable for sure. I found the same thing with my paper in trying to get elements together and relating to my overall themes within the word limit.

         I don’t think it was ever formally approved, and so slipped under the radar in terms of appropriate psychological studies. It’s definitely a tricky vacuum that people can fall into, and not trying to reach for your phone is quite an interesting experiment, considering how useful they are these days. I actually deleted Facebook recently and was surprised by how much time I suddenly had available.

         Reply

5. Hi David,

   This is a great paper and an interesting look at the social benefits of censorship. Despite being a firm pro-vaccine science believer, I have not been across what is happening in the anti-vaccine world, preferring generally to ignore their existence (I have indeed shielded myself from those with whom I disagree as you say). I found it particularly enlightening to read about what these Web 2.0 platforms are doing to censor anti-vaccine misinformation to reduce the negative health implications that the anti-vaccine movement has had on our communities. This would be particularly impactful for the more vulnerable in the community such as elderly, the very young or those who are immuno-compromised and most at risk from these preventable diseases.

   In contrast, my paper discussed how censorship is directly harming some of the most vulnerable people in communities, specifically sex-workers and within that cohort, trafficking survivors, trans and gender diverse sex workers and sex workers of colour.

   In the context that you discuss, I am firmly pro censorship but in the context of my paper, I am against it. This leads us to the questions of what is ok to be censored, and what should not be censored, and who’s opinion on what to censor should count? Additionally, with algorithms such as Facebook’s reinforcing confirmation bias and creating echo chambers, are they, in fact, effectively creating another form of censorship?

   Reply

6. Hi David,

   I forgot to mention in my previous comment that I found what you said about echo chambers and confirmational bias reflected in online views about sex-workers during my research.

   The prevailing feminist views around sex-work tend to come from a radical feminist or a liberal feminist stance. Sawicki et al. (2019) explain that radical feminists see sex workers all as victims of the systemic oppression of women by men in our society. Liberal feminism on the other states that women have agency and are therefore able to choose whether or not to participate in sex work (Sawiki et al. 2019).

   While researching for my article I came across quite a number of blogs and social media sites, reinforcing these echo chambers (not to mention the echo chambers associated with the anti feminist movements). It was even quite possible to see these echo chambers in play in some of the articles I read, along with who they chose to cite.

   These echo chambers may not have been entirely spreading misinformation however they were definitely selective in what information they chose to discuss / leave out. An example of this is the concept of choice in liberal feminist literature. While it is true that women do have agency, choice exists on a spectrum influenced by other situations in a person’s life and so some sex workers will have a lot more choice than others.

   —-
   Sawicki, Danielle A., Brienna N. Meffert, Kate Read, and Adrienne J. Heinz. 2019. “Culturally Competent Health Care for Sex Workers: An Examination of Myths That Stigmatize Sex Work and Hinder Access to Care.” Sexual and Relationship Therapy 0 (0): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2019.1574970.

   Reply

   1. Well, in my personal opinion, I have always seen it as very strange that the government is allowed to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. From sex-word to drugs and alcohol, the idea that a third party is allowed to swoop in and throw in in a cage for making your own choices is silly.
      Everyone should have the right to choose to do what they want with their body.

      I believe that the answer I provided in my paper relevant to your question of what is ok to be censored. Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. As long as you are not hurting anybody who is not also willing participant then you should be left alone.
      The anti-vaccine movement is beginning to threaten the health of vaccinated families and a line need to be drawn.
      Sex work, done as a mutually agreed upon business transaction conducted between two willing adults (over legal age) should not be seen as a threat to the fabric of society.
      I think these two conceptions are in separate categories altogether and do not both warrant censorship.

      Reply

      1. > “Everyone should have the right to choose to do what they want with their body.”

         That’s true, to a degree. However the Government doesn’t want to burden the health system any more than it currently is though.

         Reply

         1. That’s very true.
            However you could use that argument to make a case to ban and regulate substances that are currently legal. The burden that the effects of alcohol, tobacco and sugar place on our health care system is undeniable.
            Should we look to banning those substances the same way we ban drugs like Marijuana, Cocaine, Methamphetamine, etc?

            Reply

            1. I understand what you mean but that’s why I chose my words carefully and said ‘any more than it currently is…’

               Making legal substances illegal is a much bigger thing than making currently illegal substances legal.

               Not to mention, the Government makes a very healthy amount of taxes from tobacco and alcohol.

            2. David, I really like you analogy. And in terms of the burden of effects on our healthcare system, do we instead legislate what will and won’t be covered by tax payer funded health system? I think on one hand we could be quite simplistic and say that people can do what they want to their bodies such as smoking or using heroin, but our tax dollars won’t be used to treat health issues cause by lifestyle choices such as lung cancer. However, there is a significantly higher rate of smoking among people with mental health issues (Greenhalgh, Stillman, and Ford 2018) so this brings to issues surrounding the intersectionality of disadvantage and how this impacts on the choices and agency to act on these choices that people have, an issue I briefly touch on in my paper.

            3. Reference
               Greenhalgh, EM, S Stillman, and C Ford. 2018. “Chapter 7: Cessation – Tobacco In Australia.” In Tobacco in Australia: Facts & Issues. Melbourne, Australia: Cancer Council Victoria. https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-7-cessation/.

7. Great subject matter David.

   I think one of the major issues is that the people that have and spread misinformation are mostly ‘louder’ than the people that disagree. It’s easy just to dismiss someone with different ideas as ‘stupid’ and ignore them however if there is less debate on the topic then it only leads to more people joining ‘the cult’ while the rest wonder how it got to this point.

   Take the Flat Earth movement for example, there are way more scientists in the world then there are flat earth believers however who at the moment is the loudest and who among them is even speaking about their views and who is just ignoring the other? And if the ’round earthers’ do speak back, will we all just end up yelling at each other?

   On the topic of echo chambers and confirmation bias, I don’t think that Facebook actively wants it to be this way, in my opinion a lot of people have made up their minds and unfortunately won’t be swayed from their opinion on the topic unless something dramatic happens to their life, like their baby contracting a deadly illness.

   When it comes to closed communities on Facebook though, how is the information spreading if it’s a closed group and not easy to stumble across? I don’t use Facebook enough to know about that.

   I liked how you brought up the reactions of people who like to cry ‘Freedom of speech’. In my experience the majority of people who claim that their rights are being violated haven’t actually read or understood their Constitution (and also don’t understand that other people also have that right to say something back).

   “3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (order public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.”

   Reply

   1. I couldn’t agree more that the majority of these groups are just a loud and vocal minority, however, they have also been proven to be able to create major shifts in public discourse.
      Twitter mobs are a well-known phenomenon nowadays (https://digiday.com/media/anatomy-twitter-lynch-mob/).

      Yes, I do unfortunately agree that many people will not change their minds until something bad happens to them or their family. Although some countries are also now beginning to impose fines on parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids. Germany recently introduced a bill to parliament that would fine parents 2500 pounds for not vaccinating their children. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/06/german-parents-face-fine-for-refusing-measles-vaccination).

      The biggest issue I see is not that information isn’t able to get out of the group, but no information is able to get in without being vetted by a horrendous amount of bias. Often times these groups are spread around by suggested pages. This means that if you are friends with someone on Facebook who is a member of one of these pages, the page will be suggested by Facebook to you as you have a connection with one member and may share this as an interest.
      Either this or people who are already beginning to tilt in the direction of the anti-vaccine movement may actively search out these pages to join them as a curiosity. They may begin as slightly skeptical about vaccines and then be utterly turned off them after a few months of being a member.

      Reply

      1. > “This means that if you are friends with someone on Facebook who is a member of one of these pages, the page will be suggested by Facebook to you as you have a connection with one member and may share this as an interest.”

         Right, that would explain why I keep getting suggestions to join the group called ‘Unapproving Corgis’.
         A friend of mine is a multiple Corgi owner. Thank you for clearing that up 🙂

         Reply

8. Hi David

   Thank you for your paper on what is I believe a medical emergency of our time. I feel that there are some parallels in between our papers in terms of the echo chambers that social media platforms have built and how this spreads propaganda unchecked.

   One part of your paper that I find fascinating is the relationship between dopamine release and the “Social Validation Feedback Loop” (Solon, 2019). I hadn’t considered how brain chemistry keeps people in their echo chambers and your argument makes perfect sense! We are only going to get positive feedback from those that think alike, however, I had really only considered it in less sinister social media participation such as selfies for likes.
   As with my paper, I have noted a change in social media platforms response time and acknowledgement in their role of the spread of information, but it saddens me that in both of our research, innocent people had to die first. A proactive approach would have been far more responsible.
   Cheers

   MJ

   Reply

   1. This is a fascinating subject to get into. People so often see social media as inherently innocent and rarely want to look for anything that might shatter that perception. It really made me begin to look at my phone differently when I looked at it through the same lens I look at a pokie machine. Flashing lights, sounds, colors, attention-grabbing. Another student commented above on a study they found regarding the neural chemistry while engaging with social media.

      “An interesting point that I have found that relates to the topic of neural chemistry is another practice Facebook was found to be conducted in 2014, and how it can influence the emotions of people to react or interact with various communities. A research team led by Adam Kramer (data scientist at Facebook) altered the number of positive or negative stories in their news feed to see if their views could be altered via their posts, without seeking permission first. The study found that it was entirely possible to covertly change the way people interact with information, and how they might respond to various topics.”

      I can’t wait to read your paper. Hopefully, we find some commonalities.

      Reply

      1. I remember that study by Facebook and the controversy that surrounded it! Mostly because people could not be certain if they had been a part of it or not, and somehow that agreeing to Facebook’s terms and conditions you were also signing up to be a lab test for something that could affect your mood. I actually find it a little bit dangerous personally in terms of mental health wellness. What could the consequences have been with someone going through a depressive episode for instance?

         Reply

9. Hi David
   I agree with freedom of speech and the right to manage your own children, but when it comes to not vaccination them from any childhood disease is where I draw a line. Just last week a cruise ship sailed into one of the South American ports with approximately 3,000 passengers who were not allowed to leave the ship because most of them had contracted measles from someone who board with the disease active. I wrote a paper three years ago on the pros’ and cons’ of immunisation and the research was taken from the Australian Medical Society who strongly advised parents to vaccinate for childhood disease as if their child contracted any of these diseases the ramification would be a serious health risk to the child.
   One interesting point I learnt was that Australia does not have a Bill of Right as the Americans do, this means the Australian government works off the Constitution of Australia. In the Constitution (the rules to govern the people) it clearly states the Government can take all necessary actions to prevent an epidemic of diseases. This is why children who are not vaccinated were stopped from being able to attend pre-school, or day care centre a few years back. Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, in fact all social media communities should realise what they allow to be written on their site gives them a “Duty of Care” to the users. It is heartening to read Facebook was forced to make adjustments to their site, which subsequently has the rest of the social media platforms following.

   I am interest in the reference to a “Social Validation Feedback Loop statement by Parker indicating he would use this loop himself to exploit the human neural chemistry. Now I understand why most people walk around with their nose on their mobile phone screen in the shopping centres. Their addition is evident that what they are looking at cannot wait and has to be attended too “right now.” I’m of the aged generation and to me they appear to be transfixed like zombie with no sense of anyone else, I don’t think they even see other people. I enjoyed reading your paper immensely, it is well research and written in a concise format, really informative.
   Robin

   Reply

   1. Hey Robin,

      Another interesting and recent development is that in Germany, they recently proposed a law to fine parents up to 2,500 euros for not vaccinating their children. The passing of this law would also affect the 361,000 non-vaccinated children currently attending school (Source 1). The global community seem to be clamping down on the spread of the anti-vaccine movement and I think it’s a good idea.

      Thank you for your kind words, Robin! I am very interested in these sorts of things. Another fascinating subject if you are interested in this sort of stuff is the way mobile app games interact with your brain. The constant dopamine kicks, the flashing lights, the noises, rewards for passing a level, etc. There’s a very interesting article written by addictions.com which gives a great overview (Source 2)

      source 1; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/06/german-parents-face-fine-for-refusing-measles-vaccination
      source 2; https://www.addictions.com/blog/a-new-addiction-on-the-rise-mobile-game-addiction/

      Reply

10. Hi David

    A thought-provoking and timely paper that has inevitably sparked great conversations!

    Having conducted research in the past on topics such as drug addiction, social media, and ADHD, the common link that I have found quite interesting is how it affects the brain. Dopamine, the “feel-good-hormone” and the dopamine effect, which you discuss in your paper, is something that I frequently read about in articles relating to ADHD.

    As a matter of interest in dopamine, here are some great articles on how dopamine affects everyone, but more so, how this impacts the ADHD brain.

    https://www.additudemag.com/brain-stimulation-and-adhd-cravings-addiction-and-regulation/
    https://www.additudemag.com/facebook-addiction-and-adhd-how-to-break-the-habit/
    https://www.additudemag.com/brain-stimulation-and-adhd-cravings-addiction-and-regulation/
    https://www.additudemag.com/slideshows/adhd-obesity-link/

    Here are 2 interesting articles on echo chambers and confirmation bias that I thought was worth sharing.
    https://theconversation.com/the-myth-of-the-echo-chamber-92544
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/dec/04/echo-chambers-are-dangerous-we-must-try-to-break-free-of-our-online-bubbles

    Reply

    1. Hey K,

       Regarding your article from the conversation, at one point in the article, it says they surveyed 2,000 British adults and found, “Our analysis suggests that people are rarely caught in echo chambers. Only about 8% of the online adults in the UK are at risk of being trapped in an echo chamber”

       I believe that context is important in this case as well. In the source there are only 2,000 participants, %8 of 2,000 is 160. This doesn’t sound too bad, but when scaled to the size of Facebook’s total active user base of 2.38 billion people (Source 1), %8 of 2.38 billion is 163, 040, 000. That’s not including the other social media platforms that operate in the same way.

       I also don’t think we should be under the impression that the size of the group dictates the impact the group can have. Of the %8 of people that are prone to fall into the psychological traps of the echo chamber, a smaller percentage of that may be anti-vaccine advocates. Yet they’ve still managed to aid in the resurgence of diseases that we once thought were all but eradicated.

       I also liked your article on breaking Facebook addictions done by Addtitude magazine. I actually had to intervene in my only usage of social media and enforce some personal boundaries as I was using my phone way too often. I found that I would often reach for it if I was left alone, even for only a few seconds, I would pick it up and scroll. It took over a month but I definitely don’t have the same cravings as I did earlier this year.

       Regards,
       David

       Reply

11. Hi David,

    Thank you for presenting an interesting view on the affects of social media echo chambers in relation to the anti-vaccine movement. I can see where this agrument could be extrapolated into other areas of concern where there may be an abundance of ‘misiformation’ on social media sites.

    I must admit to a concern around the issue of free speech. While there is absolutely no doubt that the anti-vaccination supporters have the potential to create havoc and fear in the general population, and especially for new parents who are trying to ensure they do the best they can for their children, I find it quite concerning that social media organisations seem to pick and choose what they will and will not allow to be propagated through the use of their sites.

    I will also admit that I have absolutely no idea what the solution may be to the question of who gets to choose what should be kept and what should be shut down. I have watched YouTube videos in fascinated horror that show how to make weapons using common household items (such as toilet paper). There are plenty of videos showing how to modify guns to make them fire faster and how to ‘make’ larger ‘clips’ that will hold more ammunition so the person using the gun can get off more shots before they have to reload (three members of my family are licences shooters). No-one does anything about taking down these videos, and I struggle with the hypocrisy of what stays and what has to go.

    While all of our children are fully vaccinated, I feel I should also admit that I have never approached my children being vaccinated without doing as much research as I could. Given that our oldest child is now in their mid-thirties, this was not necessarily an easy task to undertake. My husband and I both spoke with our healthcare providers and others to get as many opinions as we could before we made decisions on behalf of our children. My husband is pro-vaccination and I am vaccination-cautious.

    My reticence mainly came about through the reactions that our daughter had to the vaccinations, the very severe reaction that our first son had and the very blase attitude of the nurse giving the vaccinations. Eventually, we chose to do everything privately at a time when you had to pay for everything in full if you took that path, but we needed to see our children properly monitored to ensure the best outcomes for them.

    I truly believe that parents should make informed decisions in relation to all health matters and especially in relation to vaccination. It is just hard to find the balance of information.

    The article listed below was very intersting and illustrates very clearly how misinformation can be spread on social media.

    Evrony. A., & Caplan, A. (2017) The overlooked dangers of antivaccination
    groups’ social media presence. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 13:6,
    1475-1476, DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2017.1283467

    Reply