Facebook的架构破坏了疫苗错误信息删除工作
Facebook's Architecture Undermines Vaccine Misinformation Removal Efforts
摘要：
错误的信息促进了对科学的不信任，破坏了公共卫生，并可能引发内乱。特别是疫苗的错误信息阻碍了克服COVID-19大流行的努力，促使社交媒体平台试图减少它。一些人质疑“软”内容适度补救措施--例如，标记和降级错误信息-是成功的，这表明增加“硬”内容补救措施-例如，去平台化和内容禁令是必要的。因此，我们研究了Facebook的疫苗错误信息内容删除政策是否有效。在这里，我们表明Facebook的政策减少了反疫苗帖子的数量，但也造成了一些反常的影响：支持疫苗的内容也被删除，与剩余的反疫苗内容的参与一再恢复到政策前的水平，这些内容变得更加错误，政治上更加两极分化，更有可能在用户的新闻源中看到。我们将这些结果解释为Facebook设计目标的意外后果：促进社区形成。致力于疫苗拒绝的社区成员似乎从多个来源寻找错误信息。社区管理员利用Facebook平台提供的几个渠道传播错误信息。我们的研究结果表明，有必要解决社交媒体平台架构如何在管理在线内容传播时围绕错误信息主题实现社区形成和动员。
英文摘要：
Misinformation promotes distrust in science, undermines public health, and may drive civil unrest. Vaccine misinformation, in particular, has stalled efforts to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic, prompting social media platforms' attempts to reduce it. Some have questioned whether "soft" content moderation remedies -- e.g., flagging and downranking misinformation -- were successful, suggesting that the addition of "hard" content remedies -- e.g., deplatforming and content bans -- is necessary. We therefore examined whether Facebook's vaccine misinformation content removal policies were effective. Here, we show that Facebook's policies reduced the number of anti-vaccine posts but also caused several perverse effects: pro-vaccine content was also removed, engagement with remaining anti-vaccine content repeatedly recovered to pre-policy levels, and this content became more misinformative, more politically polarised, and more likely to be seen in users' newsfeeds. We explain these results as an unintended consequence of Facebook's design goal: promoting community formation. Members of communities dedicated to vaccine refusal appear to seek out misinformation from multiple sources. Community administrators make use of several channels afforded by the Facebook platform to disseminate misinformation. Our findings suggest the need to address how social media platform architecture enables community formation and mobilisation around misinformative topics when managing the spread of online content.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
