It’s gospel for First Amendment advocates that lawsuits against news organizations chill freedom of the press. But in an era of rampant misinformation, such legal actions may be more accepted.
Behind a lot of news headlines often lie either questionable, oversold or misinterpreted research findings. So what should readers be aware of when reading news that contain scientific claims?
Search engines, like social media algorithms, get you to click on links by learning what other people click on. Enticing misinformation often comes out on top.
For anyone who has worked on crop improvement in Africa over the last three decades, the flood of misinformation around vaccines evokes an eerie sense of déjà vu.
Google, Facebook, TikTok and Twitter have all agreed to a voluntary code of conduct targeting misinformation. But the only real commitment is to appear as though they’re taking action.
Facebook’s decision to ban media organisations from posting links to news articles on the social media giant’s platform comes under a week before Australia’s COVID vaccine rollout begins.
Tanya Plibersek’s corridor altercation with Craig Kelly was a political win for both of them. But ‘debates’ like this don’t really get us anywhere. Here’s how to engage more constructively.
The type and amount of misinformation closely tracks tensions in US-China relations. Effectively countering the misinformation comes down to who does the debunking.
Censoring misinformation on social media may only have limited benefits. Responding with facts, however, might be an opportunity to positively influence audiences that are otherwise hard to reach.
Currently, we don’t have the legal infrastructure or public forums needed to address the spread of coronavirus misinformation in Australia. A new proposal could help change that.
Perhaps you’ve heard mRNA vaccines cause autoimmune disease, or connect you to the internet. Now the Pfizer vaccine has been approved in Australia, it’s important we iron out these misconceptions.