Censorship of vaccine misinformation is heavy handed and risky

Author: Julie Leask, October 5 2023 - For as long as vaccination has been around, people have opposed the practice. Those who argue against immunisation usually claim vaccines are unsafe. Some say they are ineffective or even not needed - that it's better to gain natural immunity from diet and lifestyle, or the disease itself.

In making these core claims, people can write or say things that have no scientific basis, that distort scientific evidence, or amplify areas of uncertainty. This has been called 'misinformation' in recent times. Technically, vaccine misinformation has been described as, "any claim that has been investigated and rejected with reasonable confidence in the peer-reviewed literature." When misinformation is deliberately put out to misinform, it is called disinformation.

Global concern about misinformation and disinformation has greatly increased in recent years, leading to considerable effort and resourcing of social listening and "Infodemic Management" with the aim to detect and avert the negative impacts.

Censorship has been promoted as a method to reduce people’s exposure to misinformation and disinformation. I believe this is not the answer to the misinformation problem. This blog summarises my arguments from a 2020 debate between Jonathan Berman and me in Index On Censorship. I argued that the basis for censoring anti-vaccination messages in social media is flawed, the process is prone to error, and the outcomes can be perilous. Rather, we need strategies that address the root causes of the anti-vax appeal, build trust with communities and that engage rather than alienate.

A flawed rationale

The calls to censor anti-vaccination content often rest on a hypodermic model of media effects, where it is claimed that misinformation is directly causing significant declines in vaccine confidence. This is not borne out by the evidence of why people do and do not vaccinate. First, many are hindered by practical issues, such as inconvenient services. Second, people take their beliefs, experiences and values to decision making. It is not of what misinformation does to people, but what people do with misinformation in that context, picking up on Stuart Hall's audience theory. Negative experiences with vaccination and other services can intensify people's mistrust. In turn, they may be attracted to ideas that fit their emerging beliefs. Online, they may receive hostile responses to mere hesitancy, escalating a sense of alienation.

A process prone to error

The process of censorship is also prone to error. Censors must find a reasonable dividing line between truth and falsehood in a complex scientific field. Insufficiently qualified censors can place thresholds for censorship too high, shutting down expression of genuine concerns. This can unwittingly hinder efforts to hear and respond to vaccine safety issues. Robust vaccination programmes should be secure enough to withstand some dissent.

The outcomes of censorship can be perilous

Censorship can backfire because it plays into the very appeal of anti-vaccination claims that negative information is being covered-up. In doing so, censorship risks attracting a broader coalition of voices who reject attempts to control what people see.

Countries using censorship as a tool of political oppression increasingly cite the need to control misinformation, implementing "fake news laws" where the bycatch can include legitimate journalism. This has occurred in countries like Germany but more recently, Australia's proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill was criticised for this very risk by the Human Rights Commissioner. A 2020 Unesco report on freedom of expression cautioned against rapidly moving to curtailing disinformation without appropriate debate, transparency and scrutiny.

Evidence-informed and ethically sustainable strategies

We need proportionate strategies that do not erode human rights. With vaccination, rather than reactively censoring content, governments should focus on:

• sustain trust in vaccination with high quality services and strong vaccine safety systems;
• meeting demand for information with early credible information (misinformation loves a vacuum);
• monitoring the sharing of misinformation to see what is salient;
• using psychological techniques for reducing susceptibility to misinformation;
• managing people's questions and concerns about vaccination well in healthcare;
• educating and building confidence in communities to empower trusted spokespeople;
• teach digital literacy to young people, as happens in some educational settings;
• support public interest journalism, for example, outlets like Croakey.

These solutions are not as simple as censorship, but the impacts are more sustainable.

Click here to read the original blog on Julie Leask's blogspot Human factors.

Image credit: Freepik

As with all the blogs posted on our website, the content above does not imply the endorsement of The CI or its Partners and is from the perspective of the writer alone. We do not check facts and strive to retain the writer's voice, as is detailed in our Editorial Policy.