Page - 193 - in VULNERABLE - The Law, Policy and Ethics of COVID-19

193Does Debunking Work? Correcting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media misinformation should be viewed as a vitally important science and health policy activity. What Kind of Counter-Messaging Works? As with the research on the challenges associated with correcting misinformation, the data surrounding effective debunking strate- gies is messy and context-dependent. More research on how best to deal with misinformation is clearly needed,44 but there is little doubt that countering misinformation can have a positive impact.45 Indeed, silence in the face of misinformation seems likely to be the worst strategy. A 2019 study, for example, found that not responding to misinformation “has a negative effect on attitudes towards behav- iours favoured by science.”46 But what kind of social media counter is likely to have the biggest positive result? Below is a list of some of the general themes that have emerged in the research regarding the tone and style of debunking messaging that is relevant to all social media platforms. Here, I focus on the actual content of a social media debunk. Obviously, not every approach will work for every corrective 44. See Gordon Pennycook & David Rand, “The Right Way to Fight Fake News”, New York Times (24 March 2020), online: <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/ opinion/fake-news-social-media.html>: “The obvious conclusion to draw from all this evidence is that social media platforms should rigorously test their ideas for combating fake news and not just rely on common sense or intuition about what will work.” 45. For the benefits of debunking in the context of a pandemic, see Toni GLA van der Meer & Yan Jin, “Seeking Formula for Misinformation Treatment in Public Health Crises: The Effects of Corrective Information Type and Source” (2020) 35:5 Health Communications 560 at 560: “Results show that, if correc- tive information is present rather than absent, incorrect beliefs based on misin- formation are debunked and the exposure to factual elaboration, compared to simple rebuttal, stimulates intentions to take protective actions.” See generally Nathan Walter & Sheila T Murphy, “How to Unring the Bell: A Meta-Analytic Approach to Correction of Misinformation” (2018) 85:3 Communications Monographs 423 at 436. A meta-analysis of existing data concludes that: “cor- rective attempts can reduce misinformation across diverse domains, audiences, and designs”; Man-pui Sally Chan et al, “Debunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation” (2017) 28:11 Psychological Science 1531; Brendan Nyhan et al, “Taking Fact-Checks Literally But Not Seriously? The Effects of Journalistic Fact-Checking on Factual Beliefs and Candidate Favorability” (2019) Political Behaviour [forthcoming], DOI: <10.1007/s11109-019-09528-x>; Victoria L Rubin, “Deception Detection and Rumor Debunking for Social Media” in L Sloan & A Quan-Haase, eds, The  SAGE  Handbook of Social Media Research Methods (London: SAGE, 2017). 46. Schmid & Betsch, supra note 30 at abstract.