Social media algorithms and popular trends have influenced the perception of COVID-19 more than the truth. We are in an era where everything – news, entertainment, education, and social interaction is at our fingertips. It is not just instant accessibility to an endless pool of information, but it is also having the power to access these things whenever we want. Seeking the truth about issues such as COVID-19 will increasingly become an effort for users, as they navigate the web full of misinformation and as algorithms fill their feeds with what they like and want to hear, rather than what is verified to be true (Ceinelli et al., 2020). On the flip side, health campaigners are needing to keep up with social media to have the right information on the platforms where people spend most of their time on and utilise the power of algorithms (Lingyao et al. 2021).

It should be no surprise to see the world unfold in chaos when it faces something as uncertain and life-altering as the Coronavirus. When the virus broke out, social media was the first place people turned to for answers – which highlights the power and influence social media has in our lives (Chen et al. 2021). When something affects people personally, there is a greater level of emotion driving the sharing of information (Wang et al., 2021). Social media, largely being the platform for self-expression, is filled with endless opinions and information – with people more likely to share negative information than positive. Such tendencies have become a great barrier for public health campaigners, as what wins over public attention is not necessarily fact-based information, but whatever is popular online (Wang et al., 2021). Think about how we judge if a product or service is good or not – we often check the reviews for it and see how many people have interacted with it or how big the product or service’s socials are. Similarly, society has evolved to “fact-checking” the COVID-19 information we come across by either trusting our close circle of friend’s words, checking if we believe the website or company to be trustworthy or not or even seeing how many shares and likes the post has gotten. Such phenomenon of misinformation spreading online has been coined by The World Health organisation as the “infodemic” (WHO, n.d.).

Lingyao et al. (2021) suggests to public health campaigners and policymakers that social media is something not to despise, but to make full use of. Their article shows that social media is where attitudes and perceptions on health policies and mandates can be observed easily and used to shape future decisions better by being in social media spaces. However, care must be taken in carrying out observations to navigate one-sided and algorithm boosted opinions to ensure that it isn’t just the loudest voices that are listened to.

Social media should also be utilised to disseminate truth by running active accounts on common platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and even TikTok (for younger audience demographics) to increase reach. Considering more often than not we use our devices as the sole source for our entertainment, social connections, education, help, news and so forth, it makes sense moving forward that a way to have accurate information spread is to have it on the right platforms in the first place. It needs to be presented in ways that make it shareable – for example, making professional but interesting reels that can update people on important things easily and having subtitles for an easy read along. With the help of the algorithm, the reel can reach more people that are not necessarily following the page or hashtags, especially those in the same area of the organisation. The National Health System (NHS) in the United Kingdom exemplifies this strategy in its NHS vaccine campaign. Stickers, filters and lens with the message “I’ve had my COVID vaccine” were created and made available across Snapchat, TikTok and other social media accounts for users (MENA Report., 2021). A question and answer session was even held on Snapchat where users could ask government officials on the Prime Minister’s official account COVID-19 questions (MENA Report., 2021).

Another factor to consider is that public health campaigners should also make use of significant COVID-19 events (such as big outbreaks or supply chain delays due to employees catching COVID-19) to promote and encourage communities to act on preventative measures like wearing masks and getting vaccinated (Wang et al., 2021). Aligning health promotion with such events can prove to be more effective as messages of preventative measures are communicated during the time it is most relevant and as emotions run high. During such critical times, it is easier for communities to recognise the importance of preventative measures and to take them on as they experience them in real-time. For example, people that experience a COVID-19 outbreak in their workplace or school would recognise the urgency of protecting themselves because they are being personally impacted by it. The peaks of the outbreak would naturally capture people’s interest on social media, thus making it optimal for public health campaigners to maximise their reach by frequently pushing relevant information out – answering people’s questions and concerns (Cinelli et al., 2020).

Wang et al. (2021)’s American study found that the public’s perspectives on mask-wearing and vaccinations were affected by the news and its discussions on infection rates, public policies and health recommendations. When the U.S. government talked about opening its economy and schools, two things resulted from it: an increased level of mask-wearing discussions and negative reactions (Wang et al. 2021). Even when COVID-19 death rates rose, people’s reactions did not follow but were instead impacted more by news coverage (Wang et al. 2021). When the words “impacted” and “influenced” are used, they are not just describing the influencing of people’s perceptions or attitudes, but also their actions. In 2020, CNN published an article that anticipated the military-backed lockdown of Lombardy, a region in Italy (Donato et al., 2020). Despite not having official confirmation from the government at that time, this assumption caused overcrowding of airports and trains as locals acted on the news and tried leaving the area before the perceived lockdown took place. Instead of the government announcing the lockdown to prevent the spread of COVID-19, the panic caused by the news article did the opposite – masses of people overcrowded spaces, making it perfect for a coronavirus outbreak (Cinelli et al., 2020). This chaos resulted from the voice of a news channel that did not have all the facts on hand before publishing – something that could have only caused such waves of panicked movement because of the fear-driven shares of the article on social media. The more traction the article received through likes, comments and shares, the more people it reached through algorithms (Cinelli et al., 2020).

Wang et al. (2021) found that Twitter users were more likely to respond to and share negative tweets concerning vaccinations – a topic largely surrounded by uncertainty. On the other hand, when the topic came to mask-wearing (a less uncertain topic), positive tweets were engaged more. Mask-wearing has even become a motivation for people to get creative and to share their ideas on DIY and personalised masks through social media – opening dialogue to making more environmentally friendly masks, learning to cut face mask ear straps and disposing of masks properly to protect marine life (Toliver, 2020) and making masks with clear screens for hearing impaired people who rely on lip-reading to communicate with others (Wang et al., 2021). Amid COVID-19, people have become mass educated on environmental and even health considerations of those who face greater implications with vaccination and mask mandates – such as people with complex health histories who may have to be more cautious with the risks of the vaccine to their bodies and as mentioned, also hearing-impaired people. Such growth in common knowledge shows the power of being in a community on social media and hearing each other’s perspectives.

So, while there are drawbacks to social media and the oversaturation of information and opinions, there is also a beauty to it, in that it is the easiest way people can unite regardless of background or geographical location. We see snippets of that beauty, especially during world events and disasters – such as the war in Ukraine. For example, entrepreneurs in Poland have utilised and deployed hundreds of 3D printers to print out various war equipment. The transportable printers are incredibly helpful to utilise during wars because of their small size they can be set up anywhere and equipment designs can be shared between printers. Such a resolution solves the issue of having to supply actual parts amid war zones. 10,000 parts have since been supplied, including protective equipment, periscopes and even drones that have been 3D printed in various parts of Ukraine at the fraction of the cost. This comes as a result of a handful of Polish tech companies combining their efforts and thinking outside of the box, all whilst utilising the Internet (Feldman, 2022).

Contrastingly, the hyperawareness of spreading misinformation can also cause anxiousness and a hesitancy to share information even from trusted sources for fear of being wrong and risking one’s reputation (Altay et al., 2020). People have shown declining trust and increased scepticism at sources that have shared inaccurate information previously, demonstrating the human tendency to become more cautious after something goes wrong (Altay et al., 2020). Such cautiousness has shaped online users to consume digital content responsibly as they not only value the accuracy of information highly but also their reputations. The human desire to do good, be seen as a good person and as a trusted source of information motivates users to be responsible for what they consume and to avoid sharing fake news (Altay et al., 2020). A study found that only 0.1% of Twitter users were responsible for 80% of the misinformation shared (Altay et al., 2020). It also found that organisations sharing false information were more likely to be known for it, such as tabloids – which hold a similar level of trust to that of junk mail. In comparison, sources such as The New York Times were less likely to share fake news as it holds a reputation for being a trustworthy news organization (Altay et al., 2020). Between tabloid magazines and The New York Times, the tabloids have less to lose when it comes to sharing fake news as they do not hold as high of a reputation as The New York Times.

While it is easy to criticise algorithms and popular trends, one has to acknowledge that our world has become so heavily dependent on those aspects of our digital lives that it would be frustrating to live without them. Having social media feeds giving you randomised content that you do not relate to would be irritating almost, as you no longer have instant access to all the content you could enjoy. We have become accustomed to getting everything at our fingertips, therefore having little to no patience for anything that falls outside our preferences. There can be greater regulation and filtering of misinformation, but it can never prevent the spread of it entirely. As a result, COVID-19 misinformation is left to influence the attitudes and decisions of the people it reaches. The misinformation is amplified by algorithms based on how much engagement it receives (Cinelli et al., 2020). However, the hope is that as people become more educated in deciphering between what is true and what is not, the spread of misinformation can have slightly less of a reckless effect on the public. Public health campaigners and policymakers should also learn to maximise the audience reach of social media by employing people experienced in producing content fit for these platforms. This should be done engagingly and refreshingly, not in a dry and outdated way – walls of information on a website with a stock picture or two do not cut it in today’s day and age.Liew_19477305_CaseStudy Revised