Prompt corrections might not stop an outbreak, but they can slow it
down. Researchers at Facebook have found that if users are quick to
point out that their friend has shared a hoax – such as a get-rich-
quick scheme – there’s an up to 20 per cent chance the friend will
delete the post.[119] In some cases, companies have deliberately
slowed down transmission by altering the structure of their app. After
a series of attacks in India linked to false rumours, WhatsApp made it
harder for users to forward content. Rather than being able to share
messages with over a hundred people, users in India would be limited
to just five.[120]
Notice how these counter-measures work by targeting different
aspects of the reproduction number. WhatsApp reduced the
opportunities for transmission. Facebook users persuaded their
friends to remove a post, which reduced the duration of
infectiousness. Urayasu City Hall reduced susceptibility, by exposing
thousands of people to the correct information before they saw the
rumour. As with diseases, some parts of the reproduction number
may be easier to target than others. In 2019, Pinterest announced
they’d blocked anti-vaccination content from appearing in searches
(i.e. removing opportunities for transmission), having struggled to
remove it completely, which would have curbed the duration of
infectiousness. [121]
Then there’s the final aspect of the reproduction number: the
inherent transmissibility of an idea. Recall how there are media
guidelines for reporting events like suicides, to limit the potential for
contagion effects. Researchers like Whitney Phillips have suggested
we treat manipulative information in the same way, avoiding coverage
that spreads the problem further. ‘As soon as you’re reporting on a
particular hoax or some other media manipulation effort, you’re
legitimising it,’ she said, ‘and you’re essentially providing a blueprint
for what somebody down the road knows is going to work.’[122]
Recent events have shown that some media outlets still have a
long way to go. In the aftermath of the 2019 mosque shootings in
Christchurch, New Zealand, several outlets ignored well-established
guidelines for reporting on terrorist attacks. Many published the
shooter’s name, detailed his ideology, or even displayed his video