It goes viral because we want to believe it.
“Why Too Much Running Is Bad for Your Health”
“10 Reasons Why Smoking Weed Is Actually Really Good For You”
“Proof that COVID Vaccines Cause Prion Disease”
(Each is a published headline, but I’ve not linked to the articles because, well, what are we talking about here?)
A scientific study produces a paper with a conclusion that interprets the data from that study.
The researchers published the paper for a specific and knowledgeable audience, not the general public. Therefore, the public reads the interpretation of the paper by professional communicators.
If the conclusion in the scientific paper appears to either a) reinforce an already-held belief or b) refute an already-held belief, the interpreter (or interpreter’s editor) has hit click-traffic gold.
The conclusion, which is likely nuanced and very specific, transforms into a toggle-switch, generalized, clickbait headline.
Since the headline matches what we already want to believe or comes from a person or institution in our tribe, we assume it’s true. Since it’s true, we start liking, retweeting, and sending around the article as a link-bludgeon — “I told you so!”
Hence, viral misinformation.
The problem of misinformation is really just confirmation bias on full display, which is a human problem, not a system problem.
Whenever we try to fix a human problem with the system rather than through personal empathy, we run the risk of artificial amplification or minimization.
The solution is not curation, but a willingness to examine one’s beliefs.
