Emily K. Vraga – författare

While many solutions have been proposed to combat misinformation on social media, most are either ineffective, expensive, or do not work at scale. What if social media users could help mitigate the misinformation they're also responsible for proliferating? In Observed Correction, Leticia Bode and Emily K. Vraga consider both the power of and the barriers to "observed correction"--users witnessing other users correct misinformation on social media. Bode and Vraga argue that when people view others directly and publicly correct misinformation on social media, their understanding of the topic becomes more accurate. Yet, while many members of the public value correction, Bode and Vraga find that they are often reluctant to correct misinformation they see on social media. This same reluctance to correct is seen among expert fact checkers and health communicators, compounded by the constraints of limited resources and competing priorities. To empower people to respond to misinformation, Bode and Vraga offer a set of practical recommendations for how observational correction can be implemented. In some cases, simple messages addressing concerns can increase users' willingness to respond to misinformation. In other cases, they argue that platforms will need to promote corrections and protect the correctors while experts can contribute by creating accessible curated evidence (ACE) to facilitate user corrections and build social norms around responding to misinformation.Including analysis of eleven experiments, seven surveys, and dozens of interviews with social media users, health professionals, fact checkers, and platform employees about their efforts to curb misinformation online, Bode and Vraga make the case that observed correction is an effective and scalable tool in the fight against bad content on the Internet.

While many solutions have been proposed to combat misinformation on social media, most are either ineffective, expensive, or do not work at scale. What if social media users could help mitigate the misinformation they're also responsible for proliferating? In Observed Correction, Leticia Bode and Emily K. Vraga consider both the power of and the barriers to "observed correction"--users witnessing other users correct misinformation on social media. Bode and Vraga argue that when people view others directly and publicly correct misinformation on social media, their understanding of the topic becomes more accurate. Yet, while many members of the public value correction, Bode and Vraga find that they are often reluctant to correct misinformation they see on social media. This same reluctance to correct is seen among expert fact checkers and health communicators, compounded by the constraints of limited resources and competing priorities. To empower people to respond to misinformation, Bode and Vraga offer a set of practical recommendations for how observational correction can be implemented. In some cases, simple messages addressing concerns can increase users' willingness to respond to misinformation. In other cases, they argue that platforms will need to promote corrections and protect the correctors while experts can contribute by creating accessible curated evidence (ACE) to facilitate user corrections and build social norms around responding to misinformation.Including analysis of eleven experiments, seven surveys, and dozens of interviews with social media users, health professionals, fact checkers, and platform employees about their efforts to curb misinformation online, Bode and Vraga make the case that observed correction is an effective and scalable tool in the fight against bad content on the Internet.

While many solutions have been proposed to combat misinformation on social media, most are either ineffective, expensive, or do not work at scale. What if social media users could help mitigate the misinformation they're also responsible for proliferating? In Observed Correction, Leticia Bode and Emily K. Vraga consider both the power of and the barriers to "e;observed correction"e;--users witnessing other users correct misinformation on social media. Bode and Vraga argue that when people view others directly and publicly correct misinformation on social media, their understanding of the topic becomes more accurate. Yet, while many members of the public value correction, Bode and Vraga find that they are often reluctant to correct misinformation they see on social media. This same reluctance to correct is seen among expert fact checkers and health communicators, compounded by the constraints of limited resources and competing priorities. To empower people to respond to misinformation, Bode and Vraga offer a set of practical recommendations for how observational correction can be implemented. In some cases, simple messages addressing concerns can increase users' willingness to respond to misinformation. In other cases, they argue that platforms will need to promote corrections and protect the correctors while experts can contribute by creating accessible curated evidence (ACE) to facilitate user corrections and build social norms around responding to misinformation. Including analysis of eleven experiments, seven surveys, and dozens of interviews with social media users, health professionals, fact checkers, and platform employees about their efforts to curb misinformation online, Bode and Vraga make the case that observed correction is an effective and scalable tool in the fight against bad content on the Internet.

While many solutions have been proposed to combat misinformation on social media, most are either ineffective, expensive, or do not work at scale. What if social media users could help mitigate the misinformation they're also responsible for proliferating? In Observed Correction, Leticia Bode and Emily K. Vraga consider both the power of and the barriers to "e;observed correction"e;--users witnessing other users correct misinformation on social media. Bode and Vraga argue that when people view others directly and publicly correct misinformation on social media, their understanding of the topic becomes more accurate. Yet, while many members of the public value correction, Bode and Vraga find that they are often reluctant to correct misinformation they see on social media. This same reluctance to correct is seen among expert fact checkers and health communicators, compounded by the constraints of limited resources and competing priorities. To empower people to respond to misinformation, Bode and Vraga offer a set of practical recommendations for how observational correction can be implemented. In some cases, simple messages addressing concerns can increase users' willingness to respond to misinformation. In other cases, they argue that platforms will need to promote corrections and protect the correctors while experts can contribute by creating accessible curated evidence (ACE) to facilitate user corrections and build social norms around responding to misinformation. Including analysis of eleven experiments, seven surveys, and dozens of interviews with social media users, health professionals, fact checkers, and platform employees about their efforts to curb misinformation online, Bode and Vraga make the case that observed correction is an effective and scalable tool in the fight against bad content on the Internet.

This book highlights the diverse methods needed to study a complex media environment, and the nuance and richness of the understanding gained by doing so, by offering examples of political communication research considering multiple platforms simultaneously.Political communication research that considers multiple media platforms is difficult and expensive to perform, and therefore relatively rare. Yet studying media platforms in isolation ignores the realities of the varied and complicated contemporary media experience, where most individuals consume information from multiple media outlets. Media platforms, from traditional outlets such as newspapers and television to newer online platforms such as social media, have proliferated in recent years. This makes the media environment itself more complex, as classic understandings of how the media function give way to a growing recognition of the hybrid media system, where divisions between content and producers are opaque, and where information is gleaned from increasingly diverse and numerous sources.Studying political communication across platforms allows better understanding of which types of experiences and effects are universal, and which are specific to particular platforms. This book was originally published as a special issue of Political Communication.

This book highlights the diverse methods needed to study a complex media environment, and the nuance and richness of the understanding gained by doing so, by offering examples of political communication research considering multiple platforms simultaneously.Political communication research that considers multiple media platforms is difficult and expensive to perform, and therefore relatively rare. Yet studying media platforms in isolation ignores the realities of the varied and complicated contemporary media experience, where most individuals consume information from multiple media outlets. Media platforms, from traditional outlets such as newspapers and television to newer online platforms such as social media, have proliferated in recent years. This makes the media environment itself more complex, as classic understandings of how the media function give way to a growing recognition of the hybrid media system, where divisions between content and producers are opaque, and where information is gleaned from increasingly diverse and numerous sources.Studying political communication across platforms allows better understanding of which types of experiences and effects are universal, and which are specific to particular platforms. This book was originally published as a special issue of Political Communication.