A fines de 2020, parecía difícil imaginar un año peor para la desinformación en las redes sociales, dada la intensidad de las elecciones presidenciales y el trauma de la pandemia de COVID-19. Pero 2021 demostró estar a la altura, comenzando con la insurrección del 6 de enero y continuando con una gran cantidad de falsedades y distorsiones sobre las vacunas contra el COVID-19.

Para tener una idea de lo que podría deparar 2022, preguntamos a tres investigadores sobre la evolución de la información errónea en las redes sociales.

Sin regulación, la desinformación empeorará

Anjana Susarla, Profesora de Sistemas de Información, Universidad Estatal de Michigan

Si bien la información errónea siempre ha existido en los medios (piense en el Gran engaño lunar de 1835 que afirmaba que se descubrió vida en la luna), el advenimiento de las redes sociales ha aumentado significativamente el alcance, la difusión y el alcance de la información errónea. Las plataformas de redes sociales se han transformado en utilidades de información pública que controlan cómo la mayoría de las personas ven el mundo, lo que hace que la información errónea que facilitan sea un problema fundamental para la sociedad.

Hay dos desafíos principales al abordar la desinformación. El primero es la escasez de mecanismos regulatorios que lo aborden. Exigir transparencia y dar a los usuarios un mayor acceso y control sobre sus datos podría contribuir en gran medida a abordar los desafíos de la desinformación. Pero también existe la necesidad de auditorías independientes, incluidas herramientas que evalúen los algoritmos de las redes sociales. Estos pueden establecer cómo las opciones de las plataformas de redes sociales en la selección de fuentes de noticias y la presentación de contenido afectan la forma en que las personas ven la información.

El segundo desafío es que los sesgos raciales y de género en los algoritmos utilizados por las plataformas de redes sociales exacerban el problema de la desinformación. Si bien las empresas de redes sociales han introducido mecanismos para resaltar las fuentes autorizadas de información, las soluciones como etiquetar las publicaciones como información errónea no resuelven los prejuicios raciales y de género en el acceso a la información. Destacar las fuentes relevantes de, por ejemplo, información sobre salud solo puede ayudar a los usuarios con mayor alfabetización en salud y no a las personas con poca alfabetización en salud, que tienden a ser minorías desproporcionadamente.

Another problem is the need to look systematically at where users are finding misinformation. TikTok, for example, has largely escaped government scrutiny. What's more, misinformation targeting minorities, particularly Spanish-language content, may be far worse than misinformation targeting majority communities.

I believe the lack of independent audits, lack of transparency in fact checking and the racial and gender biases underlying algorithms used by social media platforms suggest that the need for regulatory action in 2022 is urgent and immediate.

Growing divisions and cynicism

Dam Hee Kim, Assistant Professor of Communication, University of Arizona

"Fake news" is hardly a new phenomenon, yet its costs have reached another level in recent years. Misinformation concerning COVID-19 has cost countless lives all over the world. False and misleading information about elections can shake the foundation of democracy, for instance, by making citizens lose confidence in the political system. Research I conducted with S Mo Jones-Jang and Kate Kenski on misinformation during elections, some published and some in progress, has turned up three key findings.

The first is that the use of social media, originally designed to connect people, can facilitate social disconnection. Social media has become rife with misinformation. This leads citizens who consume news on social media to become cynical not only toward established institutions such as politicians and the media, but also toward fellow voters.

Second, politicians, the media and voters have become scapegoats for the harms of "fake news." Few of them actually produce misinformation. Most misinformation is produced by foreign entities and political fringe groups who create "fake news" for financial or ideological purposes. Yet citizens who consume misinformation on social media tend to blame politicians, the media and other voters.

The third finding is that people who care about being properly informed are not immune to misinformation. People who prefer to process, structure and understand information in a coherent and meaningful way become more politically cynical after being exposed to perceived "fake news" than people who are less politically sophisticated. These critical thinkers become frustrated by having to process so much false and misleading information. This is troubling because democracy depends on the participation of engaged and thoughtful citizens.

Looking ahead to 2022, it's important to address this cynicism. There has been much talk about media literacy interventions, primarily to help the less politically sophisticated. In addition, it's important to find ways to explain the status of "fake news" on social media, specifically who produces "fake news," why some entities and groups produce it, and which Americans fall for it. This could help keep people from growing more politically cynical.

Rather than blaming each other for the harms of "fake news" produced by foreign entities and fringe groups, people need to find a way to restore confidence in each other. Blunting the effects of misinformation will help with the larger goal of overcoming societal divisions.

Propaganda by another name

Ethan Zuckerman, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Communication, and Information, UMass Amherst

I expect the idea of misinformation will shift into an idea of propaganda in 2022, as suggested by sociologist and media scholar Francesca Tripodi in her forthcoming book, "The Propagandist's Playbook." Most misinformation is not the result of innocent misunderstanding. It's the product of specific campaigns to advance a political or ideological agenda.

Once you understand that Facebook and other platforms are the battlegrounds on which contemporary political campaigns are fought, you can let go of the idea that all you need are facts to correct people's misapprehensions. What's going on is a more complex mix of persuasion, tribal affiliation and signaling, which plays out in venues from social media to search results.

As the 2022 elections heat up, I expect platforms like Facebook will reach a breaking point on misinformation because certain lies have become political speech central to party affiliation. How do social media platforms manage when false speech is also political speech?