17 moments in the long, turbulent history of vaccine skepticism

This story is part of Doubting the Dose, a series that examines anti-vaccine sentiment and the role of misinformation in supercharging it.  Read more here . Quick—when did the epidemic of misinformation about vaccines begin? Was it when Jenny McCarthy took to The Oprah Winfrey Show in 2007 to claim that a vaccine caused her son’s autism? Or maybe when the anti-vax movement discovered that social networks such as Facebook and Twitter were a powerful way to amp their message and recruit new members to the cause? Try a little earlier than that—by more than two centuries. Shortly after Edward Jenner pioneered vaccination at the end of the 1700s, the movement against it began. Even earlier, vaccination’s precursor—known at the time as inoculation or variolation—inspired similar fear and misconceptions. Some of the specific arguments made against vaccines have evolved over the years. The means used to amplify them—from pamphlets to online videos—have changed even more. Read More …

A Trump social network could get sued out of existence

Donald Trump is “holding high-powered meetings” to start his own social network in the next two to three months, according to the ex-president’s adviser Jason Miller, who appeared on the Fox News show Media Buzz on Sunday. The former president was, of course, booted from Twitter and suspended from YouTube and Facebook (pending review), after spewing misinformation about the 2020 election and, arguably, inciting a riot at the Capitol on January 6. Sunday night, many on the right were joyous about the idea of a Trump social networking site. “BarYohai,” a commenter on FoxNews.com, summed up the sentiment nicely : This is how the free market works. People “vote” with their wallets. Trump’s social media platform will be widely successful and, additionally, it will create an incentive for people to close their Twitter (and perhaps even Facebook) accounts. Amazon and other self-appointed “speech police” will also feel the economic pain as dissatisfied customers seek substitutes for, and then “cancel” the “cancel culture” businesses. But running a social network is hard, as Trump may soon find out if Miller is right. People post untrue, defamatory, threatening, and conspiratorial things on social networks, requiring a major investment in content moderation staff and systems. It might get even harder this year if Congress decides to scale back or repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields social networks from civil suits arising from hosting (or removing) user content. Actually, repealing Section 230 was one of Trump’s go-to threats against the Big Tech companies that run social networks, especially Twitter. Days after Twitter began applying truth labels to his tweets, Trump released an executive order directing Congress to remove the 230 protections. #BREAKING : President Trump signs executive order strip liability protection from companies that censure content: “Companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield.” https://t.co/D5ooUw1fNz pic.twitter.com/FHs7kUvJH1 — The Hill (@thehill) May 28, 2020 Many of Trump’s executive orders had little effect, but that one spurred some of his GOP devotees in Congress, such as Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, to introduce bills restricting the Section 230 protections. Hawley’s 2019 Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act reserves Section 230 protections only for content removals the social network can prove were “politically neutral.” A House bill from Arizona Republican Paul Gosar proposed revoking Section 230’s legal exemptions for social networks that remove content they deem “objectionable.” Other bills condition the legal protections on more transparent content monitoring and faster removal of toxic content. Reforming Section 230 is one of the few issues in Congress that’s garnered support from both Democrats and Republicans, if for different reasons Read More …

What the science says about 7 common COVID-19 vaccine myths

This story is part of Doubting the Dose, a series that examines anti-vaccine sentiment and the role of misinformation in supercharging it.  Read more here . The Pfizer-BioNtech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccines may be miracles of modern medicine, but they were also developed in a remarkably short time frame, amid a sea of misinformation and conspiracy theories. So it’s understandable that some may feel initially hesitant about getting vaccinated. While there is an immediate need to get many people vaccinated quickly in order to reduce infection rates and the chance that further dangerous mutations will occur, convincing the vaccine-hesitant may take time. Best practices for talking about the importance of COVID-19 vaccination include genuinely listening to the concerns that others express and only providing answers you know to be true. If you’re unsure about a fact, it’s fine to say so and to direct the person to a reputable source or do more research yourself. With all the misinformation floating around, we rounded up seven common vaccine myths that may dissuade people from getting vaccinated. Here’s what the science tells us about the COVID-19 vaccines. Myth: The vaccines were rushed to market, so we don’t know their long-term impacts Read More …

The next big challenge in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout: tackling hesitancy

This story is part of Doubting the Dose, a series that examines anti-vaccine sentiment and the role of misinformation in supercharging it.  Read more here . One year into the pandemic, our ability as a country to get back to normal depends on how quickly millions of Americans can get vaccinated. Scientists estimate we need between 70% and 85% of the U.S. population to be protected from the virus before we reach herd immunity, where enough people are immune to the disease to prevent it from spreading. With demand for the COVID-19 vaccines vastly outstretching supply, much of the focus has rightly been on the vaccination rollout. But the next big hurdle to herd immunity isn’t manufacturing and efficient distribution—it’s hesitancy.  Because the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson-Janssen vaccines were developed in less than a year, many people don’t feel certain that they’re safe—even though the scientific process wasn’t rushed, and rigorous testing has proven that the approved vaccines are both safe and effective. Others fear side effects , which clinical trials have shown to be mild and actually can indicate that the shot is doing its job to protect you against the virus. Nevertheless, many Americans have been influenced by the rise of vaccine misinformation, which has stoked a lack of trust in science and the government.  Recent data from a CMU-Facebook poll of 1.9 million Americans conducted from mid-January to the end of February shows that while the biggest reason people are concerned about the vaccine is fear over side effects, 29% of people who said they definitely would not get vaccinated cited a lack of trust in the vaccine, and 27% said they did not trust the government (respondents could check more than one reason).  In addition, a new NPR/ PBS NewsHour /Marist survey found that people’s willingness to take the vaccine has a partisan bent. A whopping 47% of people who supported former President Donald Trump in the 2020 election—and 49% of Republican men—said they did not want to be vaccinated.  It’s difficult to divorce these hesitancy rates from the rapid spread of vaccine misinformation, which ranges from the subtle messaging of health influencers who cast doubt on the science of vaccines, all the way to the straight-up conspiracy theorists who believe that the vaccines include microchips (this is false and has been widely debunked ).  After brewing in niche Facebook groups for many years, anti-vax content finally reached the mainstream during the coronavirus pandemic. Boosted by a general rise in conspiratorial thinking and a strain of resistance to public health practices, like masking and social distancing, vaccine misinformation like the pseudo-doc Plandemic went viral in the early months of the pandemic and continued to spread despite tech giants’ attempts to crack down . Even though Facebook has banned a wide range of misinformation related to COVID-19 and vaccines, and Twitter recently said it would ban users who continued to share pandemic-related lies, conspiracies can still be found across social networks, where they can be spurred by recommendation systems that reward extreme and inflammatory viewpoints.  The anti-vaccine drumbeat online may have had some impact on how people feel about the COVID-19 vaccines. In fact, a summer 2020 YouGov poll commissioned by the Center for Countering Digital Hate shows a link between social media usage and vaccine hesitancy: The survey found that only 56% of U.S. residents who use social media to receive news about the coronavirus will definitely or probably get a vaccine, while 66% of U.S. residents who receive news from traditional media say the same.  Still, despite the efforts of misinformation superspreaders to promote outlandish theories and stoke fear over a life-saving shot, overall hesitancy rates have been on the decline for months . The CMU-Facebook poll shows that the number of people willing to be vaccinated increased by 5% in the past six weeks, though the overall number of hesitant and unvaccinated adults remains at 23%. The Biden administration is increasingly involved in closing this gap to ensure we reach herd immunity as a country as quickly as possible, and reports say that government officials are even coordinating with the tech giants to continue their efforts to halt the online spread of dangerous misinformation.  To unpack the multilayered reasons for vaccine hesitancy and analyze the role of social media in supercharging it, we’re launching Doubting the Dose , a package of stories that examines the complex roots and manifestations of anti-vaccine sentiment. Our stories debunk some of the biggest myths about the COVID-19 vaccines , explore the role of social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram in spreading misinformation, and report on the reluctance of some frontline and healthcare workers to receive the vaccine Read More …

How Google tried—and failed—to use AlphaGo as a bridge to China

In the spring of 2017, a year after the match in Korea , AlphaGo played its next match, in Wuzhen, China, an ancient water town 80 miles south of Shanghai along the Yangtze River. With its lily ponds, stone bridges, and narrow boat canals that snaked between rows of small wooden houses topped by rock-tile roofs, Wuzhen is a village meant to look as it had centuries before. Then a 200,000-square-foot conference center rises up among the rice paddies. It looks a lot like the wooden houses spread across the village, except it’s the size of a soccer stadium. Its roof spans more than 2.5 trillion tiles. Built to host the World Internet Conference, an annual gathering where Chinese authorities trumpeted the rise of new internet technologies and marked the ways they would regulate and control the spread of information, it was now hosting a match between AlphaGo and the Chinese grand master Ke Jie, the current No.-1-ranked Go player in the world. The morning of the first game, inside a private room down a side hall from the cavernous auditorium where the match was due to be played, Demis Hassabis sat in a plush, oversized, cream-colored chair in front of a wall painted like an afternoon sky. This was the theme across the building: cloud-strewn afternoon skies. Wearing a dark-blue suit with a small round royal-blue pin on the lapel and no necktie—suddenly looking older and more polished than he had the year before—Hassabis said AlphaGo was now much more talented. Since the match in Korea, DeepMind had spent months improving the machine’s design, and AlphaGo had spent many more playing game after game against itself, learning entirely new skills through digital trial and error. Hassabis was confident the machine was now immune to the kind of sudden meltdown that arrived during the fourth game in Korea, when Lee Sedol, with Move 78, exposed a gap in its knowledge of the game. “A big part of what we were trying to do with the new architecture was close the knowledge gap,” Hassabis said. The new architecture was also more efficient. It could train itself in a fraction of the time, and once trained, it could run on a single computer chip (a Google TPU, naturally). Though Hassabis didn’t exactly say so, it was clear, even then, before the first move of the first game, that the 19-year-old Ke Jie had no chance of winning Read More …