Today’s public sphere is largely shaped by a dynamic digital public space where lay people conform a commodified marketplace of ideas. Individuals trade, create, and generate information, as well as consume others’ content, whereby information as public space commodity splits between this type of content and that provided by the media, and governmental institutions. This paper first explains how and why our current digital media context opens the door to pseudo-information (i.e., misinformation, disinformation, etc.). Furthermore, the paper introduces several concrete empirical efforts in the literature within a unique volume that attempt to provide specific and pragmatic steps to tackle pseudo-information, reducing the potential harm for established democracies that today’s digital environment may elicit by fueling an ill-informed society.
BaekY. M.KangH.KimS. (2019). Fake news should be regulated because it influences both “Others” and “Me”: How and why the influence of presumed influence model should be extended. Mass Communication and Society, 22(3), 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2018.1562076
3.
BastickZ. (2021). Would you notice if fake news changed your behavior? An experiment on the unconscious effects of disinformation. Computers in Human Behavior, 116, 106633. https://doi.org/10/ghk5s9
4.
BennettW. L.LivingstonS. (2018). The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication, 33(2), 122–139. https://doi.org/10/gdfqg6
5.
ChadwickA.VaccariC.KaiserJ. (2022). The amplification of exaggerated and false news on social media: The roles of platform use, motivations, affect, and ideology. American Behavioral Scientist. (in press).
6.
ChonM. -G.XuL.KimJ.LiuJ. (2022). Understanding active communicators on the food safety issue: Conspiratorial thinking, organizational trust, and communicative actions of publics in China. American Behavioral Scientist. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642221118284
FarhallK (2019). Political Elites’ use of fake news discourse across communications platforms. International Journal of Communication, 13(2019), 4353–4375.
9.
Gil de ZúñigaH.Gonzalez-GonzalezP.GoyanesM. (2022). Pathways to political persuasion: Linking online, social media, and fake news with political attitude change through political discussion. American Behavioral Scientist. (accepted).
10.
HameleersM.van der MeerT. G. L. A. (2020). Misinformation and polarization in a high-choice media environment: How effective are political fact-checkers?Communication Research, 47(2), 227–250. https://doi.org/10/gf3gmj
11.
HoS. S.GohT. J.LeungY. W. (2020). Let’s nab fake science news: Predicting scientists’ support for interventions using the influence of presumed media influence model. Journalism, 23(4), 910–928. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920937488
12.
JackC. (2017). Lexicon of lies: Terms for problematic information. Data & Society, 3(22), 1094–1096.
13.
KapantaiE.ChristopoulouA.BerberidisC.PeristerasV. (2021). A systematic literature review on disinformation: Toward a unified taxonomical framework. New Media & Society, 23(5), 1301–1326. https://doi.org/10/gh4dzp
14.
KimJ.-N.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2021). Pseudo-information, media, publics, and the failing marketplace of ideas: Theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 163–179. https://doi.org/10/ghstgt
15.
KimJ.-N.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2023). Finding self-salvation for the ill-informed society: A summary of empirical studies. American Behavioral Scientist. 1–6.
16.
KimJ.-N.GrunigJ. E. (2011). Problem solving and communicative action: A situational theory of problem solving. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 120–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01529.x
17.
LazerD. M. J.BaumM. A.BenklerY.BerinskyA. J.GreenhillK. M.MenczerF.MetzgerM. J.NyhanB.PennycookG.RothschildD.SchudsonM.SlomanS. A.SunsteinC. R.ThorsonE. A.WattsD. J.ZittrainJ. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10/gc3jgv
18.
MeelP.VishwakarmaD. K. (2020). Fake news, rumor, information pollution in social media and web: A contemporary survey of state-of-the-arts, challenges and opportunities. Expert Systems with Applications, 153, 112986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112986
19.
MorosoliS.AelstP. V.HumprechtE.StaenderA.EsserF. (2022). Identifying the drivers behind the dissemination of online misinformation. A study on political attitudes and individual characteristics in the context of engaging with misinformation on social media. American Behavioral Scientist. (accepted).
20.
NisbetE. C.MortensonC.LiQ. (2021). The presumed influence of election misinformation on others reduces our own satisfaction with democracy. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-59
21.
ParkD.LeeH.JeongS. -H. (2022). Production and correction of misinformation about fine dust in Korean news media: A big data analysis of news from 2009 to 2019. (accepted).
22.
ReisJ. C. S.CorreiaA.MuraiF.VelosoA.BenevenutoF.CambriaE. (2019). Supervised learning for fake news detection. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 34(2), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2019.2899143
23.
RoozenbeekJ.SchneiderC. R.DryhurstS.KerrJ.FreemanA. L. J.RecchiaG.van der BlesA. M.van der LindenS. (2020). Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. Royal Society Open Science, 7(10), 201199. https://doi.org/10/ghhwn9
Swire-ThompsonB.EckerU. K.LewandowskyS.BerinskyA. J. (2020). They might be a liar but they’re my liar: Source evaluation and the prevalence of misinformation. Political Psychology, 41(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12586
28.
TuckerJ.GuessA.BarberaP.VaccariC.SiegelA.SanovichS.StukalD.NyhanB. (2018). Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3144139
29.
Twitter Support. (2020, June10). Sharing an article can spark conversation, so you may want to read it before you Tweet it. To help promote informed discussion, we’re testing a new prompt on Android – when you Retweet an article that you haven’t opened on Twitter, we may ask if you’d like to open it first. [Tweet]. @TwitterSupport. https://twitter.com/TwitterSupport/status/1270783537667551233
30.
VegettiF.MancosuM. (2021). Perceived exposure and concern for misinformation in context: Evidence from 27 European countries. American Behavioral Scientist. (accepted).
31.
VeglisA. (2014). Moderation techniques for social media content. In MeiselwitzG. (Ed.), Social computing and social media (Vol. 8531, pp. 137–148). Springer International Publishing.
32.
VragaE.BodeL. (2022). Correcting what’s true: Testing competing claims about health misinformation on social media. (accepted).
33.
VosoughiS.RoyD.AralS. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10/gc3jt6
WardleC.DerakhshanH. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe Strasbourg.
36.
WeeksB. E.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2021). What’s next? Six observations for the future of political misinformation research. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 277–289. https://doi.org/10/gf9nw8
