The DOI matches its Crossref record; 98 of the 98 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Misunderstanding the harms of online misinformation
Abstract
The controversy over online misinformation and social media has opened a gap between public discourse and scientific research. Public intellectuals and journalists frequently make sweeping claims about the effects of exposure to false content online that are inconsistent with much of the current empirical evidence. Here we identify three common misperceptions: that average exposure to problematic content is high, that algorithms are largely responsible for this exposure and that social media is a primary cause of broader social problems such as polarization. In our review of behavioural science research on online misinformation, we document a pattern of low exposure to false and inflammatory content that is concentrated among a narrow fringe with strong motivations to seek out such information. In response, we recommend holding platforms accountable for facilitating exposure to false and extreme content in the tails of the distribution, where consumption is highest and the risk of real-world harm is greatest. We also call for increased platform transparency, including collaborations with outside researchers, to better evaluate the effects of online misinformation and the most effective responses to it. Taking these steps is especially important outside the USA and Western Europe, where research and data are scant and harms may be more severe.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“This context, marked by a high volume of political content and emotional engagement, enabled us to test interventions effectively, but may limit the generalizability of the findings (52, 53) beyond a period of heightened political activity.”
From Reranking partisan animosity in algorithmic social media feeds alters affective polarization (2025) · cites this paper as [52]
Citations
Cites
The spread of true and false news online
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aap9559 · Cited by 8,847 · cited 1×
“49,50), this nuance is often lost in media coverage (for example, ref.”
Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160 · Cited by 3,245
Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election
Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B., & Lazer, D. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aau2706 · Cited by 1,803
Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA
Loomba, S., de Figueiredo, A., Piatek, S. J., de Graaf, K., & Larson, H. J. (2021) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1 · Cited by 1,800
Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news
Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000465 · Cited by 1,268
The scientific impact of nations
King, D. A. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/430311a · Cited by 1,245
Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online
Pennycook, G., Epstein, Z., Mosleh, M., Arechar, A. A., Eckles, D., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2 · Cited by 1,155
Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055407070554 · Cited by 1,127
Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects
Druckman, J. N. (2004) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055404041413 · Cited by 992
Political Sectarianism in America
Finkel, E. J., Bail, C. A., Cikara, M., Ditto, P. H., Iyengar, S., Klar, S., Mason, L., McGrath, M. C., Nyhan, B., Rand, D. G., et al. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abe1715 · Cited by 931
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Tufekci, Z. Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and google: emergent challenges of computational agency. Colo. Tech. Law J. 13, 203 (2015).
- Soral, W., Liu, J. & Bilewicz, M. Media of contempt: social media consumption predicts normative acceptance of anti-Muslim hate speech and Islamo-prejudice. Int. J. Conf. Violence 14, 1–13 (2020).
- Muddiman, A., Budak, C., Murray, C., Kim, Y. & Stroud, N. J. Indexing theory during an emerging health crisis: how U.S. TV news indexed elite perspectives and amplified COVID-19 misinformation. Ann. Inte. Commun. Assoc. 46, 174–204 (2022). This paper shows how mainstream media also spreads misinformation through amplification of misleading statements from elites.
- Scheuerman, M. K., Jiang, J. A., Fiesler, C. & Brubaker, J. R. A framework of severity for harmful content online. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 5, 1–33 (2021).
- Marchal, N., Kollanyi, B., Neudert, L.-M. & Howard, P. N. Junk News during the EU Parliamentary Elections: Lessons from A Seven-language Study of Twitter and Facebook (Univ. Oxford, 2019).
- Bryant, L. V. The YouTube algorithm and the alt-right filter bubble. Open Inf. Sci. 4, 85–90 (2020).
- Cruz, J. C. B. & Cheng, C. Establishing baselines for text classification in low-resource languages. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.02068 (2020). This paper shows one of the challenges that makes content moderation costlier in less resourced countries. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Human-AI agency in the age of generative AI
Krakowski, S. M. (2025) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2025.100560 · Cited by 223
Misinformation exploits outrage to spread online
McLoughlin, K. L., Brady, W. J., Goolsbee, A., Kaiser, B., Klonick, K., & Crockett, M. J. (2024) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adl2829 · Cited by 106
Human detection of political speech deepfakes across transcripts, audio, and video
Groh, M., Sankaranarayanan, A., Singh, N., Kim, D. Y., Lippman, A., & Picard, R. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51998-z · Cited by 89
The simulation of judgment in LLMs
Loru, E., Nudo, J., Di Marco, N., Santirocchi, A., Atzeni, R., Cinelli, M., Cestari, V., Rossi-Arnaud, C., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2518443122 · Cited by 57
Reranking partisan animosity in algorithmic social media feeds alters affective polarization
Piccardi, T., Saveski, M., Jia, C., Hancock, J., Tsai, J. L., & Bernstein, M. S. (2025) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adu5584 · Cited by 34
“This context, marked by a high volume of political content and emotional engagement, enabled us to test interventions effectively but may limit the generalizability of the findings beyond a period of heightened political activity ( 52 , 53 ).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Budak, C., Nyhan, B., Rothschild, D. M., Thorson, E., & Watts, D. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Dartmouth College (US)
- Microsoft Research New York City (United States) (US)
- Syracuse University (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rothschild, David M.
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2024-06-05
- Volume
- 630
- Issue
- 8015
- Pages
- 45-53
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W4399366359
- Cited by
- 156
- References
- 98
- Citations by year
- 2026: 65 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 20
- FWCI
- 16.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
- Keywords
- online misinformation, social media, algorithmic amplification, political polarization, platform accountability, platform transparency
- MeSH terms
- Disinformation, Algorithms, Communication, Humans, Motivation, Internet, Social Media
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
