If they approach misinformation as a product of loss of public consensus, authoritative sources and (social) media platforms strategies could expand beyond misinformation correctives by investing in consensus-building affordances. One of the techniques used by platforms has been to nudge users to “authoritative content” on homepages, COVID-related search results and recommendations (Clea Skopeliti & Bethan John, 2020; “Building a Better News Experience on YouTube, Together,” 2018). These platforms may however be critiqued for adopting an “information deficit model” (Kahan, 2014), assuming that the transferal of more information from experts to non-experts will fill any potential gaps in public consensus. Though we have found some evidence that these measures direct users towards authoritative sources (Finding 2), it is a strategy that cannot always guarantee agreement with users who actively distrust these sources.
Consensus-oriented moderation could constitute a suite of techniques designed to facilitate dialogue between information providers (authorities) and recipients (publics) in moments of crisis. This could imply designing a meta COVID policy aggregator that allows users to situate individual claims within a broader network of data, research and other information used by authorities to substantiate their policies. The ethos of this strategy is to offer users the information necessary to understand policies that may otherwise appear unjustified, contradictory or altogether uncertain. Indeed, we have found that public uncertainty on COVID-19 appears when authoritative sources contradict each other or frequently change their claims (Finding 2). Aggregating international, regional or local COVID-19 policies can also grant users an overview of the state of consensus between authorities on ongoing issues. Remediating contradictions and uncertainty would in this sense involve consolidating the information necessary for users to understand the rationale of current COVID policies in the context of ongoing — and inevitable — sensemaking.
In comparison to more varied recommendations from authoritative sources, audiences overwhelmingly mention masks, washing one’s hands, hand hygiene, and avoiding close contact as protective measures. A few false methods mentioned by audiences are picked up and debunked by official channels: baths, ginger and gargling certain products.
Figure 4. Prevention strategies mentioned by authoritative sources (Tweets and websites) and their Twitter audiences (Tweet replies and mentions of website domains by authoritative sources (e.g. "whitehouse.gov"))
For masks, we find varying agreements between authoritative sources and their audiences in three notable periods: late February to early March; early April; and mid-May to mid-June. In late February, who.int and cdc.gov advise against wearing masks in public so as to reserve them for caregivers, essential workers, risk groups and the sick (Figure 5). But as airborne transmission remains uncertain (Figure 3), audiences continuously claim that masks should be worn in public for protection (Figure 5).
<aside> 🖼️ mask claims
</aside>
In early April, the White House and CDC contradict the World Health Organisation and begin advising their citizens to wear masks, “scarfs and other materials” in public (Figure 5). Their statements appear to gain overwhelming traction among users, first in a notable spike in early April, and later through continuous alignment with their policy throughout May, June and July (Figure 5).