Abstract
From work to social, our source for news and means of entertainment, it seems that social media has become inescapable as it permeates every realm of our every day lives. Social media has also been an instrumental tool for the development of online communities, allowing those with similarities to connect and share information regardless of their proximity with one another. One such community that has grown excessively in this digital era is the wellness community. Stemming from the wellness movement of the 60s and 70s, the wellness movement is a counterculture founded on the ethos of “ideals of freedom, experimentation and equality” (Baker, 2022, para. 2). The introduction of social media to this community was evolutionary, allowing unconventional practices, healing remedies and alternative health advice to be shared and easily accessed by anyone, regardless of their age, gender, race, class and location. The accessibility and reach of social media in this digital era means that everyone can have a platform. The downside? Everyone can have a platform, and as is the case with most unregulated practices, the reach and platform of social media has ultimately been weaponised to generate a sense of distrust amongst the wellness community by facilitating the spread of misinformation and personal agendas by self-appointed wellness gurus. This paper delves into some of the key events and contributors promulgating mistrust and misinformation within the wellness space, exploring how the movement has evolved from a healthy, progressive alternative to Western medicine, to a concept that has become unreliable, false, and in some cases, dangerous.
What started out as a basic tool to reunite old high school friends and keep in touch with family living overseas, social media has swiftly transformed to be the digital gigantor used daily to stream the latest movie releases, teach ourselves new skills, stay informed on current events and pop culture news, and even attend business meetings. As it permeates almost every realm of our work, social and personal lives, social media is one of the most dominant communication tools, connecting individuals who may or may not have any previous relations, and establishing virtual communities through which information is learnt, shared and consumed. One such community that has grown excessively in this digital era is the wellness community. Stemming from the wellness movement of the 60s and 70s, the wellness movement is a counterculture founded on the ethos of “ideals of freedom, experimentation and equality” (Baker, 2022, para. 2). Although the wellness movement didn’t outrightly reject Western medicine, it encouraged independent thinking and presented a solution to the unmet medical concerns, appealing to those with a more holistic and inclusive perception of health in all forms. Wellness was less concerned with physical diseases but more so with emotional wellbeing, mental health and spiritual growth (Dunn, 1959). The introduction of social media to this community was evolutionary, allowing unconventional practices, healing remedies and alternative health advice to be shared and easily accessed by anyone, regardless of their age, gender, race, class and location. The intent was to facilitate a community whereby all the members could connect, belong, learn and heal. But as is the case with most unregulated practices, the reach and platform of social media has been weaponised to generate a sense of distrust amongst the wellness community by facilitating the spread of misinformation and personal agendas by self-appointed wellness gurus.
The concept of a virtual community is one that has been discussed and debated a great deal with contrasting theories surrounding whether social media has the ability to generate new communities, or rather strengthen existing ones, bringing together members who already share common beliefs and ideals. Craig Calhoun theorises that indirect relations such as those produced through virtual communities, have been around well before the digital age, originating with the emergence of modernisation (Delanty, 2018, pp. 213-214). Whilst the impact of the internet and social media on virtual communities is undeniable, it is simply reinforcing these pre-existing social relations as opposed to birthing them. Calhoun offers the example of emails to clarify this idea; that we very rarely send an email to someone whom we have no pre-identified relation with but often it is to a friend, family member, colleague or someone with whom we will share a corresponding agenda (Delanty, 2018, pp. 213-214). Most digital-based communities originated from an already-established connection in-person. For example, a work zoom meeting generally comprises of individuals who already share the same employer and have established an initial in-person connection in their time as fellow employees; an online yoga class is simply a virtual form of an exercise that derived from Northern India, practiced in-person for more than 5000 years and still currently performed in predominately offline spaces. Even online dating is a fairly modern phenomenon that mimics one of the most innate behaviours that humans and animals have been participants of since the beginning of time; mating. Rather than uniting contrasting voices and manufacturing completely original connections, social media promotes pre-established groups who already share a common set of beliefs, goals and values. This can be dangerous when the ethos of such virtual communities aren’t necessarily moral, politically correct or scientifically validated. In the wellness community, members are at liberty to dish out nutritional advice, exercise regimes and self-development practices without any accreditations or proven data. The whole practice of wellness is subjective and based on the fundamental premise of “personal testimonials, anecdotal evidence, intuition and positive thinking”, making information susceptible to presenting as unsubstantiated health advice, deception and false claims (Baker, 2019a, pp. 388-404). This highly unregulated space has given rise to content creators on social media who have built an online following of members looking to better themselves and be influenced by the messages they are seeing on their screens. The result of this, and linking back to Calhoun’s theory, is a complete echo-chamber of self-appointed gurus who claim to be sharing health and wellness amongst a community of like-minded listeners, but are actually pushing their own personal agendas and spreading misinformation and conspiratorial theories. For an uninformed follower, hearing all of this noise comprising primarily of opinions and non-certified ‘facts’, it is easy to fall into the trap of being brainwashed to the extent of taking these compelling stories of self-transformation as a substitution for medically-approved and professional advice (Baker, 2022).
Contributing to this sense of distrust generated by the virtual communities seen on social media is an extremely biased perspective compounded by an utter lack of diversity. As theorised by Craig Calhoun, communities generated online are much more likely to be comprised of members who already share a single concern, leaving little room for the inclusion of fresh perspectives and reimagined approaches (Baker, 2022). The wellness community in particular is guilty of being dominated by members who are predominately white, cisgender, able-bodied and often quite conservative in political views. High-profile Australian influencers such as Pete Evans, Kayla Itsines and Isabel Lucas have made some dangerous claims surrounding health and wellness despite having no verified qualification to do so. With so many diverse and crucial voices excluded from the conversation, the wellness community is projecting messages to over a billion social media users; only a fraction of whom are actually physically represented. When interviewed in RUSSH Magazine in 2020, founder of Melbourne-based clothing label centred on creating a more inclusive wellness and self-care industry, Rachael Akhidenor, claimed that she and other people of colour simply felt invisible in the space (Steiber, 2020). Continuously being the only person of colour in a gym class and never seeing someone on a marketing campaign who wasn’t “white, thin and privileged”, it’s no wonder that Rachael and other members of minority groups believed that wellness just wasn’t for them (Akhidenor, 2020, para. 5). The conversations and imagery being perpetuated online were only made relatable and approachable to one type of consumer. For the rest, the exclusion and lack of representation would often lead to damaging feelings of inadequacy, low self-esteem and heightened insecurities, and even depression. This extreme lack of diversity within the online wellness community is concerning for all those privy to their messages. The validity of the content being projected is diminished when it is one-sided and only catered to a very elite experience. Messages surrounding mental health, body shape and mindfulness are significantly easier to comment on when you’re already a part of a more widely-accepted gender, race, sexual orientation, physical aesthetic or economic class. The unreliability of wellness gurus who fit this stereotype of how society deems we should look, feel and be make it impenetrable for authentic and helpful information to cut through, generating a sense of mistrust within the community.
More recently, the wellness community has been closely connected with conspiratorial beliefs, most notably surrounding 5G, QAnon and vaccinations (Baker, 2020). With wellness leaders like Pete Evans and Isabel Lucas, spreading alarming and inaccurate information via their online platforms, they are doing so, paradoxically, under the guise of the fundamental ethos of wellness; individual choice, mindfulness, truth-seeking and health optimisation (Baker, 2020). It was in May 2020 that are group of these “professional feelers” amplified the conspiracy theory video, Plandemic (2020), generating its viral spread to the mainstream who would otherwise have not viewed the film or paid it any legitimacy (Baker, 2020). The strengthening of this overlap between the wellness industry and conspiracy theories has become so prolific that other members of the wellness community are making public statements online, denouncing their affiliation with this group and disassociating themselves from the harmful messages that are rampant in the online space. Australian author, Sarah Wilson, has long been curating an international following of wellness-invested individuals since she released her now famous cookbook and diet program, I Quit Sugar (McGowan, 2021). It was in one of Melbourne’s myriad of lockdowns throughout the pandemic that Wilson noticed this apparent merge between dangerous conspiracy theories and the wellness industry, proposing that it was an amalgamation of wellness becoming “fashionable” with the absence of accountability for influencers, that gave birth to this new generation of wellness gurus who were undoing all the good work of genuine wellness advocates (McGowan, 2021). Referring to the term “conspiritualism”, she explained that the industry’s authentic mission to seek truths and find alternatives to regular health practices has been discredited by the “vast uncertainty and complexity of the problems facing the world” (McGowan, 2021, para. 20). California-based yoga instructor, Seane Corn also released a statement, vehemently rejecting her affiliation with QAnon and warned followers that the wellness industry was a pioneer in mainstreaming this alt-right phenomenon that had up until recently, been hidden away in the online archives (Baker, 2022). This movement has been termed “pastel QAnon” by Canadian researcher, Marc-André Argentino, describing it as “a sanitisation of QAnon that allowed it to filter into a more mainstream audience through lifestyle influences, mommy pages, fitness pages, diet pages and alternative healing” (McGowan, 2021, para. 30). QAnon and other conspiratorial messages are being ‘sugar-coated’ and softened with aesthetic branding and celebrity advocacy to sneakily permeate the mainstream media.
Hollywood actor, Isabel Lucas identifies herself as a long-standing wellness advocate, initially gaining traction within the community from sharing her activist views about the environment and promoting raw beauty products (McGowan, 2021). However, in more recent times, the Instagrammer with over 200,000 followers comments more on 5G risks and her distrust in mandatory vaccinations for Covid-19. Lucas recently used her online platform to inform listeners that whilst filming for an upcoming film, she had “opted out” of getting tested for Covid-19 to “maintain [my] health” (McGowan, 2021, para. 14). Tests were mandatory at this time in order to ensure a safe work environment for all cast and crew members involved in the production. She then went on to speak on her immune system being healthy enough as a result of her “way of life, how [she] lives and eats and thinks” (McGowan, 2021, para. 15), inferring to her followers that if they shared Lucas’ wellness practices, then they too would be immune to this life-threatening disease and thus, general health advice surrounding vaccinations, masks and physical distancing was not applicable. The high-profile actress has also utilised her online platform to engage with and validate other problematic wellness warriors such as Pete Evans, commenting on his Instagram posts stating that she didn’t “trust the path of vaccination” (McGowan, 2021, para. 16). With the severe health implications Covid-19 has and continues to have worldwide, such misinformation surrounding vaccines is inherently concerning and dangerous. The wellness industry is responsible for a large contribution to vaccine hesitancy amongst members of the online community and as hospital systems are at capacity due to so many unvaccinated sufferers of the disease being admitted, the consequences are ample and at times fatal with healthcare workers put under significant stress, elective surgeries being postponed, and patients not receiving the same quality healthcare as they would otherwise. The repercussions are tarnishing the inceptive ethos of the wellness industry, generating a sense mistrust amongst respective online communities.
Social media is arguably one of the most influential communication tools at our disposal at-present. Its impact on how we interact with one another, share information and form legitimate connections is indisputable and much of social media’s impression has created positive ramifications for all parties involved. The features of social media however, have also been weaponised amongst online communities; the wellness industry being one notable example. Founded on ambiguity, focusing on self-improvement as defined by the self, wellness is a subjective phenomenon that can be rationalised by any person of any qualification or lack there of. As the movement towards a well mind, body and soul has dominated online environments, it has also become rampant with a new spawn of content creators who use the movement as a trojan horse, infiltrating their own personal opinions, informal health advice and conspiracy theories into the mainstream. This spread of misinformation and personal agendas on social media by such self-appointed wellness gurus has generated a sense of distrust amongst the wellness community.
References
Baker, S. A., Rojek, C. (2019a). The bell Gibson Scandal. The rise of lifestyle gurus as micro-celebrities in low-trust societies. Journal of Sociology, 56(3), 388-404. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1440783319846188?casa_token=ttGLdYcz_OEAAAAA%3ANLrBFs1CJ0a65N4UXhQjGHut5w2tBYq49AkfFGfiPHs12ctu1397CeqiOAI8HMcBAp6MqdgGlr04
Baker, S. A. (2020). Tackling misinformation and disinformation in the context of COVID-19. Cabinet Office C19 Seminar Series. https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/24612/
Baker, S. A. (2022). Alt. Health Influencers: how wellness culture and web culture have been weaponised to promote conspiracy theories and far-right extremism during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 25(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/13675494211062623
Delanty, G. (2018). Virtual Community. Community, (3), 200-224. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9781315158259-10/virtual-community-gerard-delanty?context=ubx&refId=7e486e30-1b22-42f7-8539-a50faada6f7d
Deyan, G. (2022). How Much Time Do People Spend on Social Media in 2022?. Techjury. https://techjury.net/blog/time-spent-on-social-media/#gref
Dunn, H.L. (1959). High-level wellness for man and society. American Journal of Public Health and the Nations Health, 49(6), 786–792. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.49.6.786
Ganna, K., Miao, F., Lauren, C., Tran, H., Shreya, T., Perks, S. N., Emery, S., & Schillo, B. (2021). Exploring the Discursive Function of Hashtags: A Semantic Network Analysis of JUUL-Related Instagram Messages. Social Media + Society, 7 (4). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20563051211055442
Marks, R.J., De Foe, A., & Collett, J. (2020, December). The pursuit of wellness: Social media, body image and eating disorders. In Children and Youth Services Review. (119). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019074092032082X
McGowan, M. (2021). How the wellness and influencer crowd serve conspiracies to the masses. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/25/how-the-wellness-and-influencer-crowd-served-conspiracties-to-the-masses
Statista, R.D. (2022, March). Daily social media usage worldwide. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/433871/daily-social-media-usage-worldwide/
Social Media Weaponised in the Wellness Community
Steiber, M. (2020, June). How this Melbourne brand is changing the conversation around wellness. RUSSH. https://www.russh.com/self-care-melbourne-brand/
Hi Amber – this was a brilliant and fascinating read. Thanks for your insights!
Once I started reading my mind went straight to Belle Gibson; have you heard of her? She was an influencer who claimed her healthy diet, lifestyle and self-love were curing her of cancer. Many gave up their biomedical treatments, inspired instead to live like Belle, who from all accounts was beating cancer and looking beautiful and healthy while she did it. It was all a scam, leading to very sad outcomes for some of her followers. Here’s a link to a recent BBC article written about her:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/b2538e04-87f5-4af5-bd6f-f6cf88b488c4
But on a positive note – I also thought of Dr Preeya Alexander. She’s a General Practitioner and Medical Educator who is using social media platforms for good by sharing evidence informed health information and disputing health misinformation. She was very reassuring and a voice of reason for me through the long Melbourne lockdowns. Her Instagram page is called “The Wholesome Doctor” – I highly recommend a follow!
Hey Gen, wow thank you! Yes I can’t believe I didn’t mention Belle Gibson – definitely an extreme example of how dangerous this behaviour can be and how easy it is to execute when you have so many impressionable followers who, if they too are going through an extreme illness, would be so vulnerable and desperate for any ounce of hope! I would think that if I were in such a position, I’d be willing to believe/try anything no matter who was feeding me that information 🙁 Thanks for the tip about Dr Preeya Alexander! I’ll definitely be giving her page a browse as I think that with everything said in my paper, there are some genuine people online striving to do good work and we need to recognise them and share their profiles in an effort to drown out the fakes! On another positive note, have you heard about The Therapeutic Goods Administration’s recent law banning influencers from being paid to promote skin and healthcare products? I’m not fully across the intricate details myself and I’m sure there will definitely be some loop holes as is usually the case in these situations, but it does feel like a step in the right direction. I think people are becoming more aware of the issue and actively taking steps to regulate some of the information infiltrating our devices. I also think with discussions like this taking place, consumers of such content are smartening up and not taking everything they see online as gospel; we are demanding more from our influencers and asking more questions which also feels hopeful. Very excited to read your paper and continue the discussion! 🙂
I think your examples were perfect, and a lot more relevant to today. Belle Gibson was certainly the extreme though! Yes – I had heard about the new law introduced by the Therapeutic Goods Administration as well – although, like you I wasn’t across all the details. It was discussed in a Mamamia podcast recently and they were talking about it in the same context as we are today – in terms of disputing misinformation and providing full transparency. It’s challenging for laws to keep up with the quick pace of IT and Social Media development – I’m not sure that they ever will. I hope you enjoy my paper too, it’s a bit of a different read and more health promotion specific but hopefully opens the mind up to new and positive opportunities that social media can provide.
That’s so funny I love that podcast as well; I’m sure that’s where I first heard about the new law and I recall it being mentioned in recent segments since! I think you might be right in that even the regulation of posts – there is just far too much content being published every second for a human regulator to keep up with but unfortunately computer regulators don’t seem to be doing a very accurate job. I know recently there was lots of discussion surrounding slim-figured women being able to post nude photos of themselves so long as they were strategically positioned to bypass the community guidelines. However, when a plus-sized woman posted a bikini photo, it would immediately get taken down by computer moderators for ‘showing too much skin’ and breaching the guidelines. It can also feel like a bit of a paradox using technology to solve a problem that at its root, was caused by technology itself; it’s like going to the problem for the solution. Bit of a tangent but your paper definitely gave me hope about the future of technology and how capable it is of solving such issues and more provided we use it in the way it was intended!
Oh yes, do you follow Celeste Barber by chance on Instagram? She re-creates images or videos of celebrities and it often involves nudity. She is plus sized and her re-creations are often policed/removed, where as the original image of the slimmer model remains. It’s such a double standard! But she brings attention to it each and every time which is great.
Thanks for the feedback on my paper – yes if I didn’t have faith in health promotion practice and its ability to improve and adapt I would certainly struggle with motivation to continue my studies!
Yes! I don’t directly follow her but have seen quite a few of her posts go viral and heard stories like this as well! I think her publicising these events is how I came to be aware of such things occurring on Instagram and I know she has definitely sparked some important conversations surrounding the double standards we see on our devices. So great to see examples like this normalising such taboo topics as I think it is an integral instigator of real change; users are starting to wake up to all these issues and are responding and demanding more from social media platforms and influencers.
Hi Amber,
Thanks for bringing your paper to my attention.
I agree with you that the use of social media to spread misinformation can be dangerous when it comes to the health and wellbeing of users, particularly those from vulnerable groups. In Australia, the e-safety commission works to protect online users through education https://www.esafety.gov.au/young-people/fake-news. They are also reforming the Online Safety Act 2021 to introduce powers that would mean that if someone is harassed with the intent to cause harm, the eSafety Commissioner could force the social media platform to remove the content (Australian Government eSafety Commissioner, 2021).
Medically trained people are held accountable for the information they spread online by Ahpra Social Media Guidelines that state members should ‘not present false, misleading or deceptive information, including advertising only claims supported by acceptable evidence. However, social media platforms offer little to no protection for their users when it comes to untrained users offing advice on health, with most community guidelines relying on the community to protect taking no responsibility.
One of the main problems social media platforms face is that they cannot consistently define what constitutes harm, as discussions are usually around what their responsibility is, what they are prepared to take accountability for, and what can be controlled under government laws. Without a common definition, it becomes hard to provide solutions that protect individuals from harm online. If social media platforms are to be effective in providing solutions to manage online harassment, there needs to be a clear definition that is commonly used to manage the harassment, as stated by Marwick, 2021 in Morally Motivated Networked Harassment as Normative Reinforcement.
Do you think the Government should be responsible for regulating social media users, or should social media platforms be held accountable for what is published on their sites?
I enjoyed reading your paper and learning more about this space.
Good luck with the conference :)
Veronica
Hi Veronica
Thank you so much for sharing this information – it gives me a little hope, as I have generally felt that governments don’t stand a chance in regulating compared to the social media giants. It’s interesting though that there are the guidelines in place for the medically trained health professionals, but not for the everyday user.
I think the regulation needs a combined approach from Governments and the social media platforms themselves. From a public health and health promotion perspective I think Governments definitely needs to play a role to protect the population from harm and minimise the risk of poorer health outcomes, both psychological and physical, just like they do with road and tobacco laws for example.
Best, Gen
Hi Gen, I am really interested in your thoughts about regulation as I am on the fence about this. Is it the platforms responsibility to “regulate” the community or should the poster be held accountable? I acknowledge that for the poster to be held accountable it would first have had to have had some form of government regulation. I am keen to flesh out how the platform itself has, if any, a responsibility. Look forward to hearing your thoughts
Hi Anton
It’s extremely complex isn’t it? I do still feel the platform has a responsibility and we see this with fact check warnings and removal of some content. As an individual, we all “should” take responsibility for our own opinions, actions and posts, as we have to IRL. We saw an example a couple of years ago with Israel Folau, where he was held accountable, not by the platform or government, but by his workplace – Rugby Australia. Where his views posted online did not align with their policy and his contract was cancelled as a result. Obviously that was a big case and it’s not realistic, or ideal, for workplaces to police their employees social media activities but in the extreme circumstances it is also another avenue open for regulation.
As a health promotion student, the “health in all policies” is an approach that resonates with me quite strongly. It basically infers the impacts on population health should be considered by all departments and in policy decision making. Whether that be fiscal, transport, environmental and most definitely technology.
Its such a blurry line – is the regulation by a platform controlling free speech? I think your Rugby Australia example is really strong. Arguably the most prominent player in the world held to account for their views. Is there a way out government could also do the same thing??
Anton, if you’re interested in a little more reading, from a health promotion perspective, here’s my paper too!
https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2022/csm/325/social-media-and-online-communities-provide-opportunities-for-health-promotion-practice-to-increase-its-effectiveness-and-dispel-health-misinformation/
Hi Antony
I think the line needs to be “blurred”. There isn’t just one answer or one person/platform/organisation/government responsible. It’s complex and needs a complex, thought out solution. When free speech causes harm to others it becomes more than just an argument for free speech. We saw the same during covid where people protested their individual human rights, without the awareness or consideration that individual human rights come second to the right to health and wellbeing of communities as a whole. There’s a hierarchy.
You pose thought provoking questions, I’d love to hear your thoughts more specifically.
Best, Gen
ps: I was not able to reply to your comment directly above, I’m not sure why. and apologies for the incorrect spelling of your name too (I think autocorrect may have been at play!)
Hey Veronica,
Thanks for your comment; I definitely learnt a lot just in reading this piece! I think it is great what the e-safety commission does but worry that it isn’t enough; I only recently learnt about their work and am sure that with the mass of social media users present on the respective platforms daily, a large proportion of them are also unfamiliar with the education being put out there by the e-safety commission. It would be great if platforms like Instagram were actively promoting the work they do to all users and having it as a permanent feature of their interfaces so that all users are at least aware of this outlet.
It’s feels so dissonant that the people we actually want to hear from (the credited medical professionals) are probably saying a lot less due to these restrictions and the risk of losing their jobs, licences etc. On the other hand, those claiming to know what they’re talking about but don’t have any authentic qualifications have much less to lose and so can be more liberal in their opinions on such serious subjects.
I agree; I think even the creators themselves could never have predicted the incredible juggernaut that social media would become in our lives and how difficult it must be to regulate when it comes to issues around deciphering what should be left up and what is harmful. I think at the end of the day it is up to social media platforms to modulate content however, I do agree that there need to be much more clear laws and boundaries by which platforms can abide by. I think given the size and force of social media in this current climate, this is an issue that requires a team of diverse voices to make a real difference. I believe that platforms, governments and users themselves all have an important part to play in tackling this.
Thanks again for your engagement and yes all the best with the conference!
Hi Amber,
I found your paper to be so engaging and well-written! This subject is so topical at the moment, particularly with vaccine mandates as you have mentioned. I find it so frustrating that people seem to take information found on the internet as gospel, particularly when it comes to COVID-19. Your point about under-representation and broadcasting information to people who often don’t meet the cisgender, white, male demographic was also really interesting! Not only would this content be inaccurate to a large proportion of audiences, but it would also be really excluding and harmful.
If your’e interested, my paper covers the topic of influencer authenticity and how, rather than selling ideologies, it helps market products and brands. I’d love to hear your thoughts. https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2022/csm/148/the-pivotal-puzz…mass-e-marketing/
Thank you! 😊
Brooke
Hey Brooke,
Thank you for your comment! I know I completely agree and worry that as we are primarily getting most, if not all of our news from online media, the lines are just going to get even more blurry with what’s real and what’s not. I have found in my own personal interactions, that many people from older generations are actually more disposed to taking everything they read online as verbatim. I think this is because they grew up in a time before the surge of misinformation and everywhere they got their news (e.g. newspapers, TV news programs etc.) actually had to be fact-checked before running. It’s probably quite perplexing for them to wrap their heads around the fact that something being printed or published online might not actually be true. And yes, this lack of diversity within the digital platforms is so problematic and although we are definitely seeing some changes, the balance of voices is still so disproportionate.
I can’t wait to read your paper and will definitely be leaving a comment! Sounds like a topic that is right up my alley 🙂
Hi Amber,
Great paper! You made some really interesting points and there’s a few I think could be fleshed out in further papers. I thought it was interesting that you pointed out a lack of diversity within the wellness community. You would think that with virtual communities that traditional community groups would change but, as you have pointed out, it appears the wellness community potentially excludes those who don’t fit the typical wellness identity of white, cisgender, able-bodied, conservative-leaning people. It is also interesting that you note a correlation between the wellness community and antivaccination sentiment as well as vaccine hesitancy. You would think that ‘wellness’ encompasses vaccines. You’ve stated that vaccine hesitancy incited by wellness people insights mistrust in the wellness community because they’re steering clear from their ethos. It makes me think of Goffman’s presentation of self. The wellness community is saying one thing to present themselves in a certain light (e.g. be healthy, open-minded, equal) but their actions are telling their viewers something entirely different (don’t take life-saving mediation [vaccines], don’t trust those who enforce vaccines, white & cisgender). This also makes me think of the antivaccination movement. Similarly, they also believe in 5G and conspiracy theories (Nguyen & Catalan-Matamoros, 2020). I agree with your statement that this unpoliced and unregulated information can cause dangerous outcomes, particularly surrounding vaccine hesitancy. Do you think mandatory vaccinations go against the wellness community’s ethos because they don’t align with the wellness community’s “ideals of freedom”? How do you think virtual communities enable this perception outside of echo chambers? Did this occur before virtual communities or does it occur because of virtual communities? Keen to hear what you think!
And for some shameless self promotion… I have a similar paper to Amber’s that discusses the antivaccination movement’s impact of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and offline social behaviours. Check it out! 🙂 https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2022/csm/667/dangers-of-social-media-misinformation-the-influence-of-the-anti-vaccination-movement-on-covid-19-vaccine-hesitancy-and-offline-social-behaviours/
Hey Chantel,
Thank you so much for your comment! Yes I agree and it’s so sad because I think the introduction of virtual communities really has the potential to create a much more accessible and inclusive platform for marginalised groups; social media definitely has the abilities and the reach to do so much good in diversifying communities across all interests beyond just wellness!
I find this contradiction baffling myself, that those who promote health and wellness are so dismissive of genuine medical advice. They are definitely putting out mixed signals on this topic and the lack of alignment between their myriad of values makes it all the more confusing for content users to trust the information that they’re projecting. I think it also takes away their credit, not that they arguably had any genuine credit to begin with. That’s such a good comparison about Goffman’s presentation of self and not one I had considered! And yes, upon my research, I also explored the 5G conspiracies but felt that mentioning this would open a whole other can of worms that would definitely exceed the word count guidelines; there is just infinite information about various conspiracy theories you really could be plummeted down a rabbit hole for weeks!
Initially, I did think that mandatory vaccinations do go against freedom of choice, however as we know, many have opted to not get vaccinated and have still been allowed to live; they’ve just had some of their privileges removed for a temporary period of time. As we see the world start to open up again and many mandates being lifted, I wonder if those who chose not to get vaccinated were ever really stripped of their freedom? Whilst there is no denying that some anti-vaxers really did have to get vaccinated regardless of their stance because they couldn’t afford to not work or needed to be able to travel to see a sick relative etc., I think many still did have a choice to some extent. It just meant that their choice came with some pretty harsh consequences. I’d love to hear your opinion on this! I also think that looking at any in-person rally, strike, march or protest that has taken place in rejection of vaccines and lockdowns, is a good example of how these virtual communities have accumulated a large group of individuals with the capabilities to physically come together and project their views outside of an online space. As protests have been prevalent long before the rise of social media, I believe that these occurrences would be taking place with or without social media, but online platforms have indisputably amplified the size and force of these events.
I can concur that your paper Chantel was a compelling read and one that I’d highly recommend for anyone that finds this topic or my paper engaging! Definitely give it a read 🙂
Hi again,
Yes the information about misinformation is very overwhelming haha. With regards to the vaccine mandate, I do believe many people were opposed to the vaccine just because it was mandated. This article – The long, strange history of anti-vaccination movements (see link below) – is a really interesting read and it demonstrates that mandatory vaccinations have a history of being opposed just because they’re mandatory. “As soon as that mandate is introduced, that’s when we get an organized anti-vaccination movement” (Nadja Durbach, as cited by Anna North, 2022). People are strange. There will always be those who rebel just because they can. I used to think that mandatory vaccinations were ridiculous in the sense that it would encourage opposition, however, they have proven effective in decreasing mortality rates from illnesses so it seems that the benefits of mandatory vaccinations outweigh the cons. I think the consequences that those opposing mandatory vaccinations experience are necessary because it provides an incentive to be vaccinated. I believe in freedom of choice but not when it impacts the health of individuals and everybody else around them. I believe you can actually be charged if you have a disease and knowingly infect somebody else with it. It would be interesting to see if something like that occurs with COVID. I know that, in the early days of the pandemic, people were fined for leaving quarantine etc. It looks the mandates and restrictions for the non-vaccinated are slowly lifting, so I’m curious to see how the wellness community reacts to that and if COVID cases will rise.
North, A. (2022). The long, strange history of anti-vaccination movements. Vox. https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22958419/covid-vaccine-mandate-pandemic-history
Cheers,
Chantal
Hi Amber,
Thank you for directing me to your paper. This was a brilliant discussion and analysis of online wellness communities! This was a topic that I did not know much about, however, after reading your paper, I feel that I have a much deeper understanding of the online community and would love to look into the topic further.
I also thought that your discussion was very relevant at the moment. I have seen so many influencers online promoting the idea that COVID-19 vaccinations are dangerous and life-threatening and spreading extreme misinformation that they are selling as facts. As a social media user during this pandemic, it has been overwhelming to hear all of the opposing sides and it is difficult to know what information is and isn’t reputable. Do you think that this overwhelming feeling of confusion is an experience many social media user’s have had during this pandemic, when seeing contradictory online posts about the virus? Is this something you experienced over the past two years?
Your paper also reminded me of many online ads that I have seen and fallen victim to. For example, weight-loss ads which are just a scam, and offer ridiculous and unrealistic results from practices that are not medically accurate and even sometimes dangerous to the user. I have also seen many vitamin ads from influencers, for example hair vitamin ads, which claim to be almost ‘magical’, however, they do nothing at all. I’d love to hear your thoughts on these more mainstream ads that are targeted to regular users and what you think these ads would lead to for the users.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on the above!
– Ella Jones 🙂
Hey Ella,
Thank you so much for your comment! I’m so glad that this has sparked an interest for you but also sad to hear that it resonated so much with all these influencers infiltrating your own social media pages; sounds like you definitely have some unfollowing to do! I completely agree that from a consumer perspective, especially one that has limited knowledge on the scientific facts surrounding this topic, the contradictions and inconsistency in information is so overwhelming and something that I believe a huge proportion of users are being impacted by. Personally, I definitely have seen this on my pages and I wouldn’t consider myself an avid follower of very political influencers. I think social media algorithms definitely have something to answer for here as I find you don’t even need to be engaging with these users to have this information delivered to you on a silver platter.
Yes, I think that the misleading and over-promising ads that have been circulating our content (online and offline) for decades now are just another rendition of this spreading of misinformation. Similarly and quite sadly, I can definitely say that I’ve been sucked into the scheme of these brands myself. One example that particularly comes to mind is the ‘skinny teas’ that were actually debunked to be nothing other than laxative juices. Many experts have come out since and discussed the real harm these products do to our digestive systems and metabolism, causing long-term destruction to our physical and mental health. Not to mention the short-term implications if you’ve ever experienced the fowl taste and severe stomach aches these drinks induce. I think for these brands, and very similar to wellness influencers, the agenda is very much profit-focussed and not at all about spreading solutions and improving overall health. Money is definitely the driving factor and I also believe that marketing and good graphics has a huge role in promoting these products and making consumers believe that this will be the revolutionary, life-changing thing that they have been looking for to solve all their problems. As we know, this can only lead to consumers wasting their money on products that do not live up to their marketed claims; for some of these products that do cause tangible harm however, the consequences are much more sinister.
Hi Chloe,
Social media can definitely become a dangerous place when it comes to false advertising of so-called “wellness” products, such as these “diet” teas you have talked about. I think its also interesting to note that while most users these days are aware that ads such as these are scams, there is still a part of you that wants what they are selling to be true, that wants there to be an easy fix to bad skin, weight loss, and so many more problems that are so common for young user’s to face. These marketing companies and influencers rely on this and use it to their advantage, which is really upsetting to see. I’d like to commend you again for discussing such an important and overlooked topic.
– Ella Jones
Hi Amber,
That was a very interesting piece to read. I’ve heard a lot about conspiracy theories around covid-19, vaccines and 5G networks. It does not surprise me that these conspiracies and misinformation extend to wellness groups, given how much information we consume online these days. The term ‘wellness’ as you said resonates with the public, particularly within a community, whereby people can connect, heal and learn, regardless of their identity, background, culture etc. I definitely agree with the idea that wellness communities have been weaponised, especially when practices are unregulated. All types of information can be disseminated online to mislead people nowadays; those posting such content, do not realise they are hurting others. I guess the main problem with social media and online communities is that there are not enough boundaries between the amount of content people consume and the moderation online.
Hi Amber,
This was an incredibly interesting paper, I appreciated the clear and concise discussion. It is definitely alarming but at the same time interesting to see how much influence people online have, especially celebrities and influencers you have mentioned who have used their platform to voice their scandalous and unfounded views. This would also demonstrate in a way the stubbornness of human beings when we have made up our minds about something and refuse to see it different – even if there is an overwhelming amount of evidence proving our beliefs untrue.
You have captured and analysed the wellness community well as a prime example of this and how damaging it can be for people of high influence to share unbalanced and factually incorrect information and thoughts. Even with the mention of social media algorithms and preconceived groups of friends, it can be understood how people can be so far from the truth if the people they surround themselves with and the content they receive on social media support their unfounded beliefs. It is definitely a messy environment that frankly, I’m not even sure how it can resolve or improve itself.
Hi Amber,
This paper was quite an interesting read. I must admit I have limited knowledge of this community and how easily misinformation is spread between influencer and follower. However, in seeing marketing campaigns, social media posts, and even magazines in retail stores it isn’t difficult to notice the lack of diversity amongst these wellness influencers. I can believe the lack of relatability for many would create that distrust, however would having a more diverse range of wellness influencers help the community? Or might it make the spread of misinformation easier as people are more trusting of those they can relate to? I think perhaps we need our online community to be more aware of this misinformation so that these “wellness influencers” are fact checked, and called out more often. Great paper!
-Zoe