Global Research Journal of Education received 152 citations as per Google Scholar report
Received: 15-Nov-2022, Manuscript No. GRJE-22-84523; Editor assigned: 18-Nov-2022, Pre QC No. GRJE-22-84523 (PQ); Reviewed: 02-Dec-2022, QC No. GRJE-22-84523; Revised: 08-Dec-2022, Manuscript No. GRJE-22-84523 (R); Published: 16-Dec-2022, DOI: 10.15651/2408-6894.22.10.145
The spread of false information is a crucial policy concern that could have negative effects on US democracy. Facebook users came across more false stories favouring the ultimate winner than the eventual loser in the months leading up to the 2016 election. It is important to avoid overstating but also to avoid underestimating the spread of false information on social media. Misinformation has a wide range of potential political repercussions, and access to factual information stands out as essential to a functioning democracy. One possible option is factual corrections. Even if earlier studies suggested that corrections can not only be useless but even "backfire" and make errors worse, more current research has come to the opposite conclusion. Corrections can improve factual accuracy, especially when they are directed towards fellow partisans during times of heated political rivalry.
When people securely hold false factual views, misinformation is the result. Political systems are plagued by the issue, which was initially identified by Kuklinski and colleagues in 2000 and is extremely challenging to fix. In this review, we evaluate the empirical research on political disinformation in the United States and take into account what has been discovered by academics after that initial study was published. We draw the conclusion that this topic's study has progressed unevenly. The psychological causes of political misinformation have been further explored by academics over time, and their work has accumulated in a useful fashion. Contrarily, despite a large body of study, the literature on how to correct misinformation is less consistent in its suggestions. Last but not least, an emerging field of study investigates whether people's reports of their factual ideas are sincere or merely partisan cheerleading. The study of political misinformation as a whole highlights the many difficulties that representative democracy faces.
When someone has the incorrect information, they are uninformed. The authors discovered that Illinois residents had false assumptions about welfare policy, including the size of the typical welfare pay-out and the characteristics of those receiving aid. Respondents expressed great trust in their beliefs notwithstanding their inaccuracy. The authors argue that being misinformed is distinct from being uninformed, which is the condition in which a person has no factual beliefs regarding the subject at hand.
This divide has important normative ramifications since those who lack knowledge base their political judgements on false assumptions. Shared misconceptions can systematically sway public opinion when huge groups of people are misguided in the same direction. This undermines the notion that "errors" in individual-level preferences cancel out in the end. The possibility that ignorant people act politically based on false knowledge is even more frightening.
This policy study looks at how disinformation spread via social media (SMM) can exacerbate political unrest and legitimise mass murder. This article is intended to specifically encourage key stakeholders in domains related to combating SMM to think about the unique difficulties brought on by the deliberate or unintentional propagation of misinformation in environments at risk for mass crimes. The relationship between SMM and atrocity prevention has general characteristics, even though contextual nuance information is necessary. This study makes the case that SMM may be especially effective in atrocity-risk environments and might thus have a significant impact on the societal bandwagon effect that promotes violence against the targeted groups. We provide an overview of the challenges arising from SMM with specific recommendations for each stakeholder group in order to support atrocity prevention. The diverse ranges of relevant stakeholders we address in this paper include social media corporations, established (legacy) media, non-governmental civil society actors, researchers and civil society, governments and multilateral organisations. We hope that this policy brief will serve as the starting point for ongoing discussions among these stakeholder groups on a contentious and complicated issue, thereby enlarging the atrocity prevention community in this developing field.