Jump 6: Social media super spreaders, lobbying in Brazil & Facebook's bad PR
Scott Davidson's newsletter on PR, public affairs & lobbying
Welcome to Jump 6. Because practitioners often miss great academic studies. Because I do a lot of reading.
Highlights
Which social media platforms are the worst for spreading conspiracy theories?
Child health lobbying in Brazil
(More) bad PR from Facebook
Filing….what’s that?
Squid game
OVER THE WALL
In this edition I focus on significant new research on social media and the prevalence of Covid-19 conspiracy beliefs - asking the question, does the platform matter? What are the differences between Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Messenger and Whatsapp? And why might those differences be?
Yanis Theocharis (Technical University, Munich) is the lead author and the project included 18 other researchers looking at conspiracy beliefs and social media across 17 countries in Europe. Looking for variations between countries as well as between social media platforms.
The paper clarifies that by conspiracy theories they mean false beliefs in a malevolent force orchestrating major world events.
The authors initial hunch was that Facebook more easily diffuses conspiracy theories because it is a more closed system based around mutual relationships such as school friends, parent groups etc. Facebook’s small, contained spaces are identified as somewhere where conspiracy beliefs can be spread with a high initial virus load…so to speak. This is further amplified as interactions are between already existing friends and family. A suggestion here that there is a strong link between holding conspiracy beliefs and relying on friends and family for information, i.e. someone’s trusted source is the super spreader.
Twitter and YouTube are more open, with any content having the potential reach to all users.
Twitter use is more oriented around news and information seeking. On Twitter people are more likely to encounter diverse sources and critically, opposing viewpoints. The paper suggests that disinformation sources are largely ignored by twitter users. My experience is that there are some depressingly popular conspiracy accounts and memes circulating on Twitter, but I guess what matters here is the variation and to note there are factors that make Twitter less fertile ground for the conspiracy theorists.
The paper asks if YouTube is a special case. It is more open, and the YouTube algorithm does not connect users to friends, but instead people are directed toward what the algorithm thinks are their interests. It also encourages producers to build and promote themselves, thereby creating micro celebrities who become influencers within the communities that the YouTube algorithm seeks to create. The paper wonders whether the emotional ties between users and the micro celebrities, and in this case, influencers peddling conspiracy theories, makes them particularly influential. Also notable is that likes and upvoting on YouTube is secret, taking aware any fear of social disapproval, friends and work colleagues can’t see if you are liking crazy conspiracy rantings.
The paper surveyed 28,000 and then 14,000 people over two waves. In terms of national variations, East European countries had the highest prevalence of conspiracy beliefs, the Nordic countries the lowest, and the Mediterranean somewhere in between.
The results found that use of Twitter has a significant dampening influence on conspiracy beliefs, while WhatsApp, Messenger, Facebook, and highest of all YouTube bolstered conspiracy beliefs. The paper showed: “that Twitter has a negative effect on conspiracy beliefs—as opposed to all other platforms under examination which are found to have a positive effect.”
In a key paragraph the authors offer this potential explanation of what they had found:
“it is possible that conspiratorial content (on twitter) — when it appeared—could be debunked fast or possibly “drown out” with better quality information or the sheer volume of those willing to quickly jump in and correct misperceptions. This is in contrast to platforms like Facebook or Messenger services, where the networks are not only more homogeneous, but countering opinions may be harder to emerge for different reasons. For example, precisely because of Facebook’s more family-and-friends oriented connections, users might think twice before attempting to correct conspiratorial content, as they are more likely to have to face the cost of jeopardizing social relationships.”
The findings are clearly relevant for communicators in public health and campaigners on other issues relating to science, risk and the environment. It is also useful pathology in understanding the threats of Big Tech to democracies and social advancement.
NOTABLE
The tension between commitments to public deliberation and back channel influence for some lobbyists is explored by Camila Maranha Paes de Carvalho (ACT Health Promotion) and colleagues. They interviewed public health advocates, academics and legislature officials. On the subject of who influences child health and nutrition polices in Brazil.
The problem noted in the appear is that while there is a lot of public, rather symbolic, deliberation on policy in Brazil, the people they interviewed believed key moments of influence were taking place in more informal backstage encounters, and this was where commercial industry lobbyists had a particular advantage.
Their recommendation for lobbyists in public health and for child nutrition advocates was to understand the importance of a relational approach to policy influence, that despite lengthy policy-making processes key decisions can be made quickly outside of these processes, and they advise campaigners to make the most of their networks and leverage any social capital they might have.
* Do you enjoy seeing leaked lobbying strategy documents? I know that I do. For those of you who enjoy peeking behind the curtains EU Observer has a leak of farming lobby strategy documents on the issue of EU food policy reforms.
* With Facebook’s product, and lobbying strategy, now regularly being compared to that of Big Tobacco, a good moment to flag up again this useful article by Ranjan Roy on how the wheels fell off Facebook’s public relations. As Roy writes it used to be all:
“We're sorry. We should've done better. We're working on it and improving every day. It's only “(tiny number) X” percentage of overall posts. AI. Machine Learning.”
That no longer works. Frankly, it no longer deserves to work.
* This is a curious one
“(Astrophysics professor) Garland…asked each student where they’d saved their project. Could they be on the desktop? Perhaps in the shared drive? But over and over, she was met with confusion. “What are you talking about?” multiple students inquired. Not only did they not know where their files were saved — they didn’t understand the question.”
Students and younger workers totally unfamiliar with the concept of filing, does this ring true to you? Full article
CULTURAL HINTERLAND
Squid game, it’s quite the global phenomenon. It has become the biggest grossing series on Netflix, with extra significance as it’s also not in English, but Korean. I have made it through the whole series. Not that Netflix will care as it counts its money but I thought it was ok, entertaining, but not brilliant. The red light-green light game was a “highlight”…stop waving your arms around and stand still!
[potential spoiler alert for all links below]
Really interesting debates about the problem with the subtitles and the translating from Korean, and the use of English in the series.
Shoddy subtitles…
No surprise in the world of brands and marketing promotion there have been many, many attempts at trendjacking
And last but not least…so many memes…