The anatomy of deception

This is what is being reported by everybody on the internet . Broadcasters like ESPN are amplifying rumors that she had an affair with her boyfriend's father . It's not true , but it doesn't matter . Her face is everywhere , amplifying rumors that she had an affair with her boyfriend's father . It's not true , but it doesn't matter . Her face is everywhere .

Her name is trending . The internet has already decided what's true and what's not . What started out as an anonymous post on a college app exploded into memes , hate messages and even a swatting incident at her mom's house .

It doesn't always have to be strategic or political . It can happen to anyone and we're all vulnerable to believing it too . Fueled by emotional reactions like shock , fear , anger or scandal , false stories can spread faster than the truth .

Spreading lies has always been part of human behavior , but until very recently , our networks were smaller and there were certain gatekeepers that could either protect us from our worst impulses or feed them . In either case , we had a shared idea of reality , but that's changing . Publishers and broadcasters no longer control what we consume , for better or worse .

We're all the media now , or worse , we're all the media now . So we all need to get better at understanding how false information spreads and how we can combat that . To start the conversation , we have Dr Cara Breeson-Boyvin on the show . She holds a PhD in sociology and leads

the research team at Media Smarts . Media Smarts is a Canadian charity focused on digital media literacy , and it just published some new research on misinformation . Cara began by telling us all about it .

We did a mixed method study , so we did a survey with 5,000 participants across the country and it included interactive activities where we asked them to verify different examples of information , and then we showed them some of MediaSmart's Break the Fake campaign videos .

So these are short educational videos that are designed to teach folks how to recognize and respond to misinformation .

And then , after the study , we worked closely with 30 participants in focus groups where we dove a bit deeper into some of this content and we asked them to share examples of information that they've come across or shared in the last couple of weeks .

We asked them to to share examples of information that they've come across or shared in the last couple of weeks . We asked them to rank some examples of information on things they would share privately , publicly or not at all .

And ultimately , the goal of this study over the two phases was to be able to understand what kind of messaging works best in an intervention like the Break the Fake program .

We wanted to be able to understand how important it was to emphasize how to steps so sort of how to recognize and respond to misinformation , and we also wanted to understand how important it was to motivate people , so the kind of why it's important to check , you know , for misinformation , so things like it impacts the people around you , like your family and

friends . And so the videos were designed . Some of them very much focused on how messaging , some of them focused on the why messaging and some of them combined the why and the how .

And through the survey and the focus groups , we were able to explore the different messages of the videos and we learned some really fascinating things about people's information seeking , sharing and processing habits and what makes a very good intervention .

What are the ingredients of a successful intervention to help support people in again recognizing misinformation , but also what would help break the fake in Canada .

People relied on their previous experience and knowledge . One of the examples we gave in the study was an image of a spider . It looked very colorful and we got some fascinating responses from people around . You know , I have never seen a spider like this . Therefore , it must not exist .

And actually the spider did exist , it was real , and so that's just an example of how we can tend to rely on our own experience or our own knowledge , and more often than not , relying on these kinds of mental models are not as reliable .

As you know , the steps that we outline in the break the fake program , which is to check the source , verify the source , um , you can use fact-checking tools . So those kinds of steps are going to ensure a much more reliable answer than some of our own mental models .

And so , moving forward , we're going to build on the knowledge we've gained through this study to continue to build resources in the Break the Fake program , as well as to disseminate and share the results of this study

so that other community organizations , researchers and policymakers who are working in the field of misinformation and doing work to mitigate for misinformation in Canada can also build interventions that are based on the evidence that we've gathered in this study and the lessons we've learned around what makes a successful intervention .

I will say I think the a really important good news piece coming out of this study is that education works .

We found that , by virtue of just participating in the study , that participants were much more likely to engage in critical thinking , to say that they will , you know , fact , check information , you know pause and think before they share content , think about who they're sharing it with and how .

So just by virtue of sort of what we call in the field , priming people to think critically about information had a positive effect on people's behavior , and I think that's really important in the context we're living in right now , where people are also feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information that we're seeing and experiencing on a daily basis .

It's very good news to know that priming people to think critically about their information seeking and processing behaviors has a positive result .

It's important for people to understand that , in an online context , we're operating in a networked environment , and that means that all of the different platforms that we engage in and the spaces that we share information are connected , and so that's why often , when you see something go viral , it can go , it can , it could have started or gone viral on a platform

that you're not even a member of . It can be on a social platform that you don't have an account on , but you end up seeing it on a different platform .

So , for example , if something starts going viral on TikTok but I don't have a TikTok account , it's very likely I could see that on YouTube , where I do have an account , or on Instagram , and that's because of the way that these platforms are networked and connected . It's also because , while we are consumers of information , we are also producers of information .

When we choose to share content , we are also engaging in the reproduction and production of that content , and so , again , there's this educational piece to remind people that we have a responsibility when it comes to consuming and sharing information in this network because of that ripple effect and because of the way these environments are connected effect , and because

of the way these environments are connected and so topics and conversations and debates and so on can , I know , get shift amongst these different platforms and will sort of rise and fall in popularity because of the way that they're connected .

So any kind of content that is tied to ideologically motivated information and or emotionally motivated information so things that really get at our base emotions of anger , anxiety , fear those are the kinds of information that we are most likely to spread , and so different groups know this and they will use that as a way to push misinformation .

So tying it to any kind of partisanship or ideology is a way to encourage the spread of misinformation .

I mean , we saw the ways in which anti-vaccine ideologies were being tied to other forms of hate and extremism in ways that previously were not , which again both speaks to the power of ideologically and emotionally motivated content and also the networked nature of the online environment , if you can connect both those kind of ingredients , the networked nature and the

kind of information that is being spread . We definitely saw an increase of that during COVID , where suddenly you're seeing these movements again anti-vaccine , some neo-Nazi groups that were previously distinct suddenly coming together in very odd ways .

And again , I think that was in part because of the way the information environment has shifted and now the ways that these ideologies are coming together have become difficult to disentangle , which makes it hard to recognize sometimes when there's misinformation .

This allows them to reach audiences that are less likely to see counter messages . They can also sometimes go under the radar of sort of efforts to detect . So think that's that's one tactic .

Um , I think most reachers researchers agree that organized misinformation campaigns have had sort of little direct effect on elections in canada so far , but campaigns related to covid , for example , and election integrity were fairly wide seen by voters in 2021 . And the latter theme is , you know , since been seen in provincial elections as well .

So they're both examples of misinformation campaigns that to a large extent , start in American politics and then , when they've been adopted by Canadian sort of disinformation actors that can sort of reinforce their continued prevalence in sort of a North American discourse .

Again , because these networks or these online platforms are networked , they're not necessarily national or provincial in the same way that traditional or localized media can be , and so , again , that just really muddies the water in terms of how misinformation flows and how things like elections or public health crises are impacted .

. To build on that , we have another great guest , tim Coalfield . Tim is a professor of law at the University of Alberta and he's also an expert voice on misinformation , specifically with regard to health .

He recently published a new book called the Certainty Illusion what you Don't Know , and why it Matters and he began by telling us what motivated him to write it .

What does the emerging research tell us about the current situation ? And by the current situation I mean this spread of untruths , the constant spin and rage that bombards us daily . Right , you know how did we get here ?

But you know , since you know , near the end of the book and since the book has been published , I never imagined it would be even worse , right , even worse .

And and it's fascinating because I really think it's going to sound like hyperbole , but I really think that you know the spread of misinformation , this chaotic information , and , from my environment , it's become one of the defining characteristics of our time . And so , yeah , the motivation was was pretty deep and I'm glad I tackled it .

But it also seems like I had no appreciation that this is where we would be right now , in this moment .

So , for example , in the book I write a lot about our dysfunctional research environment . I write a lot about our dysfunctional research environment , right , you know all the pressures on the research community that create hype and spin and less than ideal representations of science , and it was sort of like hold on , hold on . Did I do that too ?

And you know what I think ? Early days I probably did . But that's how incentives , how incentives , work , right , you know they . It's not necessarily conscious . It's these subtle pressures that that shape your behaviors and I think it's really important to pause and reflect on that . And you know I try to do that in the book a little bit .

So , for sure , that's one of the things I , you know , kind of learned on a personal level . And the other one that I found fascinating , you know , so I there's a whole section on online reviews , the five-star reviews that rule our universe . So this is a topic we haven't done much research on and we have since I've finished the book .

We've actually done some empirical research on that topic . But I loved it because I was learning so much and I got to talk to experts around the world about this topic and I learned so much . But also I got really an appreciation of the degree to which these online reviews really do shape our behaviors .

I mean it's incredible Again , this is going to sound like hyperbole , but I don't think it is . I mean it's incredible Again , this is going to sound like hyperbole , but I don't think it is . You know , trillions of dollars are moved as a result of

online reviews .

You know , no one makes a purchasing decision without kind of reflecting on these reviews , these five star reviews , and you know , as you know , and it seems like almost everyone knows they're manipulated , they're fake , you know they're , they're subject to all the cognitive biases that impact all the decisions that we make throughout the world and even , and despite the

fact we all know that we still rely on them . So I found that , you know , absolutely fascinating and , as I said , we've actually gone on to do some empirical research on that very topic .

I think often when you talk about misinformation , people maybe think or at least some people think that well , you're just talking about people lying and people being fooled by those lies , or people you know exaggerating and being fooled by those exaggerations , when you know in reality there's so much at play , right , you know , there's the misinformation continuum , as I

call it . You know , at the one end you have the individuals that are spreading disinformation . They know it's a lie and they're spreading it for , you know , to sell something for a particular agenda . State actors do this , right , just to create information chaos .

And then , on the other end of the continuum , you have individuals that spread misinformation and perhaps they don't know it's misinformation . They're just doing it for themselves and their family and their loved ones . You know they have no , no ill intent . So there's a lot of complexity there .

Having said that , we know , we know that so much of the misinformation that is spreading right now is driven , no surprise here , by the online environment , by the incentives baked into that online environment .

So , in other words , things you know , things that play to our cognitive biases right , they play to are confirmation bias , you know , lies that play to things that we want to believe . For example , they play to our fear and the things that enrage us to our grievances .

Indeed , there's a growing body of evidence that tells us that much of this stuff that comes across our radar is designed to play to all those emotions .

Right , there's a big study that came out after I finished the book that really highlighted the degree to which misinformation is tethered to rage and to fear , and that , of course , is because it plays to our negativity bias .

We remember the bad stuff , we remember the scary stuff , we remember the stuff that enrages us , and the reality is so much of the stuff that we see online , so much of our information environment , is shared . It's on our radar because someone shared it , and 74% of that content somewhere between 73% and 75% of the content has been shared without clicking through .

In other words , someone saw a headline or a meme or a picture that played to their emotions , played to their rage , played to their preconceived notions , and shared it , and part of the reason is because it's just such a chaotic information environment .

So I I think that the the rage and the anger , the playing to our emotions and all of the incentives that are baked into our online environment , especially social media , but really even the search , the things that's really .

As someone who's been studying this for a long time , one of the things that's really changed is the degree to which misinformation lies you know untruths , whatever you want to call them the degree to which they're tethered to politics , to our political identity , of course .

Of course , politics has always been lurking in the background , but now it's at the absolute four right . You know you pick a topic and it has a political dimension to it . I study mostly health misinformation . I can't believe the degree to which you pick a topic . It's become political . You know you're .

Whether you believe that bit of misinformation or not is can almost always be predicted by your political identity , and it wasn't always like that , but , holy cow , it is now .

misused to spread lies ?

We can't let it become extinguished , we can't let it become twisted right , and unfortunately , the way it's set up right now it is less than ideal . But let's talk about how good science is misused in our information environment and this has become incredibly common , right ? You see it everywhere In the book . I joke that the Enlightenment has won .

Right , but it's won as a brand , not necessarily in substance , right ? No one says , oh , my product has less science behind it . You know , no politician says my position actually has less evidence behind it .

The idea of science has been embraced by the public , I think in general , and because it gives credibility and because it makes whatever they're saying seem more legitimate . So it's a process I call scienceploitation .

You take a little bit of real science , real exciting science , and you use that language to sell bunk and it's done as I said , it's almost become the norm . It's absolutely everywhere . One of my favorite examples of of science exploitation is the microbiome .

You know if , if we got in a time machine and went back five , six , seven years and we went out in the street and asked people about the microbiome , some people might have a vague idea what , what it , what that is about . Uh , now , the word microbiome is on the side of shampoo bottles right , it's . It's on every soap . Soap , it's everywhere .

It's everywhere . Right , it's on our , you know , yogurt and supplements . And that's science exploitation . You know it it's using . Everyone knows that there's this exciting research going on around microbiome and that's real research . I've been involved in that , in that stuff . But they're just leveraging that genuine excitement to create a veneer of legitimacy .

The other great example is regenerative medicines , stem cells , that entire area , it's everywhere . I mean there's face cream that has stem cell on the label , even though it has nothing to do with stem cells . We're doing a research project right now where we're looking at stem cell supplements .

Right , and again , they're just leveraging the idea , the excitement , the legitimate and deserved excitement around stem cell science to sell products . But this happens everywhere , right ? The word quantum is a really good example . Everything's quantum now quantum healing , quantum thinking , you know , quantum yoga .

And that's done just to use the brand of science to sell products , to sell ideas .

You know , as I said at the beginning , a lot of those algorithms are designed to play to our emotions , right . Rhythms are designed to play to our emotions , right .

Lots of studies have shown that the more extreme a position is , the more likely it is to get clicks , to get attention right , which is the , you know , the currency on social media and this attention economy , right ? And what's fascinating about that ?

There's a study that came out not that long ago that found that , yes , the more extreme a position , the more likely you are to get clicks . But we all live in echo chambers , so , very quickly , that extreme position isn't so extreme anymore , so you have to become more extreme .

How this cycle develops , that , you know , sort of incentivizes extreme fringe ideas but also helps to facilitate this polarization , right , because it's going to push echo chambers apart from each other , uh , in sort of a race towards the most extreme position .

That's going to get to get clicks , and we're seeing , we see that happen on virtually every , every single topic . Um , and that's going to get clicks , and we see that happen on virtually every single topic . And that's because of the algorithms that push this information in front of us . And , by the way , it happens also with search engines , right ?

We did a study on cancer books and the idea here was you're an individual , god forbid you get a cancer diagnosis , or someone in your family , a loved one , gets a cancer diagnosis , kind of a logical thing to do would be to look for a book on that .

So you go to amazon and you , you know , google cancer and we found that 49 of the books that are returned are filled with misinformation and , by the way , some of its hardcore misinformation . This is not like , oh , you know . By the way , some of it's hardcore misinformation . This is not like , oh , you know , is this kind of okay ?

No , it's like , you know , carrot juice will cure your cancer , kind of stuff . And 70% of the books on the first page , which is usually all anyone looks at , filled with misinformation , right ?

So that's the algorithm , you know , responding to the you know , the algorithm knows these are the books , these are the ideas that are going to get traction , that are going to get clicks , that are going to drive the information economy and , unfortunately , it works and , unfortunately , it's having a massive impact on society .

We know that celebrities shape and have an influence on people's beliefs , on people's beliefs , and they also help just to spread misinformation , even if it doesn't start with them . There was an interesting study done at Oxford , very straightforward , a very straightforward study , and more sophisticated studies have been done since then .

But this was early in the pandemic and they looked at hundreds of bits of misinformation and they wanted to get kind of the origin story of each bit of misinformation and they found about 20% started with a prominent individual , as they called , you know , a celebrity , a sports star , that kind of thing .

That's a pretty high number in itself , right , but then what they found out is 69% of what we share on social media . So the normies the not the celebrities comes from a celebrity , right . So it really gives you a sense of how a celebrity almost has a magnifying effect .

Other studies have shown that you know that if you relate to that individual , they speak to your values , you are more likely to believe them . The mere fact that they have a megaphone , that obviously matters because it plays to something called the availability bias If you just hear something enough , it starts to feel true . You know the illusory truth phenomenon .

You know , just hear it enough it feels like it might be true . And celebrities can play a big role in that phenomenon , but also also and I think this is underplayed the celebrities telling a little bit of misinformation . That's an anecdote , that's a testimonial , that's a story . Even if it's just a post on social media , that's a story from a celebrity .

So we know that stories , testimonials , anecdotes can overwhelm our ability to think scientifically , especially if it's a scary story .

So think about . One of my favorite examples of this is Nicki Minaj . I don't know if you remember this , but Nicki Minaj's friends , cousins , testicles yeah , those testicles ruined a week of my life because I was doing interviews about those testicles . But think about that .

The story that nikki minaj posted was these testicles became inflamed because of the covet vaccine . And those testicles , you know , they overwhelmed and and beat out hundreds of millions of data points on safety and efficacy because it was a scary story from a celebrity .

And , by the way , there has been research that has shown that , yes , scary stories from celebrities kind of win on the Internet . So that's , I think , another really important phenomenon and why celebrities and pop culture and influencers can have such a big impact . But fast forward to today and you know these influencers .

I don't think they're like these niche voices anymore . They have become the media right . Think of Joe Rogan . He , you know , I think once upon a time he was kind of viewed as a podcaster and influencer . Now he's one of the most influential voices in North America . He's a podcaster .

So I think that's , you know , now , that the media environment has shifted and these sort of online influencers that were once , you know , micro celebrities you might even had called them now they're full blown celebrities , massively influential , and part of that is because they play to niches , they play to an audience in a way that , unlike any time in the past ,

right . So that is , you know , another , I think , phenomenon that has made influencers and celebrities more broadly so incredibly powerful .

. Was that a misinformation boom that we experienced ?

You know , together we were at the very beginning of the pandemic and I think everyone thought , okay , this is going to be a golden time for science communicators , for public health , you know , because everyone's going to appreciate how important it is . And it didn't last long , though , right , it really didn't last long .

It quickly devolved into almost an opportunity for misinformation mongers , and we know that happened . Right , we know that , for example , belief in things like the efficacy of ivermectin increased throughout the pandemic and it's continuing to increase .

So , you know , if you look at the studies , things that are demonstrably false are believed more now than at the beginning of the pandemic . And ivermectin is just . You know , the efficacy of ivermectin is just one example of that . And part of the reason is've , you know , touched on this already is because so many of these topics became political talking points .

Right , they became wedge issues , they became ideological flags . Your position on the efficacy of ivermectin is an ideological flag , right , I can almost with some degree of certainty predict you know your ideological , you know your views on other topics based on your view on ivermectin . And this happens across the ideological spectrum .

I want to emphasize that right away because I'm sure people you know are going to say he's being so partisan . This happens across the ideological spectrum . But that's another reason . I think that the pandemic sort of accelerated the spread of misinformation . And the other thing that happened is that it weaponized distrust .

So we're often hearing about distrust now and how we have to earn the trust of the public now and how we have to earn , you know , the trust of the public .

But I don't think it should be forgotten that much of the and research backs this up much of the distrust if not , you know , a large portion of the distrust that exists right now was created by the spread of misinformation . And we know that because that distrust falls exactly along political lines , exactly right .

And if it was just sort of a general distrust created by , you know , mishandling of topics etc . You'd see a more uniform distribution . But you see it entirely at one end of the political spectrum .

And let me just give you one example In the United States , for example , the growing distrust of childhood vaccination is entirely , has become , you know , part of the populist playbook . So that's another thing that flowed from the pandemic . And if I could just say one more thing , the other thing that's happened is this war on the fight against misinformation .

Right , you know , we've seen misinformation become the idea that of researching misinformation , trying to counter misinformation , trying to understand misinformation . That's been politicized , right , and you're the enemy . If you're fighting misinformation , somehow you're pushing censorship or you're against freedom of expression , which could be further from the truth .

But that narrative has worked and just very recently , in the United States , they've started cancelling , cancelling research projects on misinformation because that narrative has been so successful and because that narrative has been so politicized and that was Tim Cofield speaking to us .