Seite - 197 - in VULNERABLE - The Law, Policy and Ethics of COVID-19

197Does Debunking Work? Correcting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media Seventh, emphasize the gaps in logic and the flawed strategies used by those pushing misinformation. Several studies have found that using rational arguments, such as highlighting the rhetorical tools used to spread misinformation (for example, relying on conspir- acy theories, misrepresenting risks, using false “experts”), can be an effective debunking strategy.64 Eighth, make the facts the hook, not the misinformation. While the evidence about whether debunking can inadvertently spread mis- information is mixed, it makes sense to frame debunking in a manner that makes the correct information—not the misinformation, myth, or conspiracy theory—the memorable part of the messaging.65 Make sure the misinformation is clearly flagged as wrong so the debunk is the key takeaway. Finally, the audience should be the general public, not the hard-core believer. This should be the case even if the debunk is trig- gered by information circulated by a hard-core believer or someone who is pushing misinformation for personal gain.66 It is difficult to change the mind of someone who is heavily invested in a particular myth or conspiracy theory. As noted by the WHO, the probability of changing a vocal science denier is extremely low.67 For this reason, (2019) 2:2 Can J Bioethics 52. 64. See Schmid & Betsch, supra note 30; Stephan Lewandowsky & John Cook, The Conspiracy  Theory  Handbook (Fairfax: George Mason University, 2020); Gábor Orosz et al, “Changing Conspiracy Beliefs through Rationality and Ridiculing” (2016) 7:1525 Frontiers in Psychology 8: “[U]ncovering arguments regarding the logical inconsistencies of CT beliefs can be an effective way to discredit them.” 65. Some have called this the “truth sandwich” strategy. See Benkelmam, supra note 41 at sum: “There are a number of strategies for reporting on falsehoods without amplifying them. One is the ‘truth sandwich,’ which involves stating a true fact, then the falsehood, then the true fact again.” While this approach makes sense, once again there isn’t that much direct empirical evidence on point. And there is some research that suggests order may not be that significant. See Evan R Anderson, William S Horton & David N Rapp, “Hungry for the Truth: Evaluating the Utility of ‘Truth Sandwiches’” (July 2019), online: ResearchGate <www. researchgate.net/publication/334491502_Hungry_for_the_Truth_Evaluating_ the_Utility_of_Truth_Sandwiches_as_Refutations>, where it was found that “the truth sandwich structure did not significantly affect the likelihood of readers’ endorsing false claims relative to a more typical refutation structure.” 66. I will often use a pop culture moment—the spread of misinformation by a celeb- rity, for example—as an opportunity to create sharable content about science and the problems associated with the spread of health misinformation. 67. World Health Organization, “Best Practices Guidance: How to Respond to Vocal Vaccine Deniers in Public” (Copenhagen: Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization, 2016): “Rule 1: The general public is your target audience, not the vocal vaccine denier.”