In Brief

• The Facts:

  The UK government and big tech companies have agreed to greater collaboration to stop what the UK government deems as 'vaccine disinformation.'

• Reflect On:

  Who is deciding what is accurate and what is not? Are we hearing all the facts from the experts? Or only those that are allowed to enter public discourse?

If you’re feeling like it is becoming quite confusing to navigate information these days, you’re not alone. Who do you believe? Why is there such a divide? Is it really that hard to get to truth? The answer is no, but if we can’t discuss ideas openly, become polarized in our positions, and have fear driving us at a deeper level, it might be a lot more difficult.

What happened: Digital Secretary Oliver Dowden and Health Secretary Matt Hancock held a virtual roundtable to address what they believe to be a growth in vaccine disinformation on Facebook, Twitter, and Google. The UK government and social media platforms have agreed to new measures to limit the spread of vaccine misinformation and disinformation to help people find the information they need about any COVID-19 vaccine.

It’s important to note that open informed consent about vaccines is not the intention here, only government approved messaging on vaccines is allowed. The nuance here is that citizens will likely not be told of the potential risks, dangers or side effects associated with vaccines, and it is likely the case that information like that will be deemed as ‘disinformation.’

The agreement between big tech and government includes a few key concepts:

• To commit to the principle that no user or company should directly profit from COVID-19 vaccine mis/disinformation. This removes an incentive for this type of content to be promoted, produced and be circulated.
• To ensure a timely response to mis/disinformation content flagged to them by the government.
• To continue to work with public health bodies to ensure that authoritative messages about vaccine safety reach as many people as possible.
• To join new policy forums over the coming months to improve responses to mis/disinformation and to prepare for future threats.

Further, this new agreement will see social media platforms, public health bodies and academia increase their cooperation and ongoing information sharing when it comes to the ‘increasing treat’ false COVID-19 vaccine narratives.

Why It Matters: Who will decide what is false? How can academia, government and mainstream voices be held accountable when they are wrong about information? Why are we not open to hearing more perspectives and determining if they are accurate?

We are again seeing that the only information allowed to disseminate on a topic is information from government or information that government approves of. The focus isn’t on determining what is objectively true or worthy of discussing, it’s simply on ‘does mainstream conjecture and government approve of this?’

It’s interesting to ask why there appears to be such a denial of information that contrasts, scientifically, the mainstream position that vaccines are highly effective immune therapy when in reality the evidence says there is more to this story that needs to be openly discussed, not denied as ‘anti-vaxx info.’

In general, there has been no consensus around COVID-19 and how to address it within the scientific community. All that has occurred is government voices get air time, and those who are qualified but dissent from these ideas, are not allowed to speak. We saw social media deleting their perspectives and a lack of invites for them to offer insight on mainstream news.

Big tech has already incorrectly censored vaccine information from Collective Evolution multiple times. Fact-checkers have even falsely ‘debunked’ questions we brought forth in our journalism by citing information that doesn’t apply to the story or facts at hand. Scientists asked to comment are often clearly not experts on the subject, and appear to be Google searching their ideas before providing a classic ‘go to’ statement to fact-checkers.

For example, one scientist claimed that aluminum is not a problem in vaccines because it is consumed everyday within our food supply and thus it must be safe. Their statement did not include an understanding that injected aluminum acts differently in the body than ingested aluminum, and that the type of aluminum used in vaccines is a nanoparticle that operates differently than what you might find in food.

All of this nuance not mentioned or explained by the ‘expert’ who tried to debunk the claim. This leaves the public misinformed, and the publishing company who wrote the article at odds due to falsely broken credibility.

This is a real challenge we have on our ands where those who are deciding what is true are operating from dogma, not facts.

Further Reflection: It is true that some activists questioning vaccines have been ‘irresponsible’ in their approach, spreading false information at times or aggressively going at the public conversation in a way that makes it difficult to discuss seriously. That said, in many cases there are incredibly sound activists and journalists bringing forth factual information, and in a meaningful way. Why are they always lumped in with the most extreme cases? Is this an attempt to cast doubt on different narratives? Why are we pretending this is an issue of ‘pro’ vs ‘anti’ when in reality it’s simply about looking at what ALL the science says, not just the outdated stuff?

It is almost like we exist in a time where we are having trouble remembering how often our understandings in life change or evolve. We hold on, collectively, to ideas that we have built so much on, and even if they change, we can’t let go. Further, there is a deep grab for power taking place when it comes to information, one that is challenging us to decide how much personal responsibility we are ready to activate when it comes to living our lives.

Deep down, we have to truly explore the questions as to why we have so much trouble looking at new information. Why are we triggered by it? Why do polarizing sides trigger us so deeply? Why do we accept the invitation to fight? Will our sense-making be much easier and more effective if we are calm, centred within self, clearer of our own bias’ and more open to communicating with empathy? Perhaps it’s time we do that?