Seite - 194 - in VULNERABLE - The Law, Policy and Ethics of COVID-19

VULNERABLE194 message—a tweet is, after all, just 280 characters. But these evidence- informed general principles can help to maximize the impact of efforts to correct online misinformation. First, use facts. Despite all the concern regarding the impotence of facts to change minds, most studies have found that providing cor- rective information can be effective,47 especially if the alterative expla- nation—the science-informed facts—fills in the gap in understanding caused by the debunk and (when appropriate and possible) provides a causal explanation.48 This approach can also nudge people to think more critically generally, which may help to shield them against related forms of misinformation.49 Second, provide clear, straightforward, and shareable content.50 Studies have shown that the use of scientific jargon will cause people to disengage, even if explanatory language is also provided in the text.51 47. Leticia Bode & Emily K Vraga, “In Related News, That Was Wrong: The Correction of Misinformation Through Related Stories Functionality in Social Media” (2015) 65:4 J Communication 619 at 630: “Our experimental evidence suggests that attitude change related to GMOs can be achieved with regard to misperceptions by virtue of exposure to corrective information within social media.” See also Emily Falk & Molly Crockett, “You Can Help Slow the Virus if You Talk about it Accurately Online”, Washington  Post (28 April 2020), online: <https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/04/28/you-can-help-slow- virus-if-you-talk-about-it-accurately-online/>; ibid. 48. See Walter & Murphy, supra note 45 at 436: “[C]orrective messages that inte- grate retractions with alternative explanations (i.e., coherence) emerge as an effective strategy to debunk falsehoods.” See also Briony Swire & Ullrich Ecker, “Misinformation and its Correction: Cognitive Mechanisms and Recommendations for Mass Communication” in Brian G. Southwell, Emily A Thorson & Laura Sheble, eds, Misinformation and Mass Audiences (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2018): The alternative explanation effectively plugs the model gap left by the retrac- tion. See also Brendan Nyhan & Jason Reifler, “Displacing Misinformation about Events: An Experimental Test of Causal Corrections” (2015) 2:1 J Experimental Political Science 81. 49. See Ecker et al, supra note 39 at 49: “We can thus conclude that embedding a rebuttal in a fact-oriented context has beneficial implications beyond specific belief reduction, fostering a more sceptical and evidence-based approach to the issue at hand.” 50. Samantha Yammine, “Going Viral: How to Boost the Spread of Coronavirus Science on Social Media”, Nature (5 May 2020), online: <https://www.nature. com/articles/d41586-020-01356-y>. 51. See e.g. Hillary C Shulman et al, “The Effects of Jargon on Processing Fluency, Self- Perceptions, and Scientific Engagement” (2020) J Language and Social Psychology 1 at 13: “Jargon can then serve as exclusionary language that disen- gages meaningful relationships between public and expert communities from forming.”