#flathearth

In the era of social media, science seems to be within easy reach. Scientists can inform about results of their research on their social sites and communicate with their followers directly. YouTube hosts several informative channels that deal with the greatest science mysteries and share them with their audience in a highly entertaining form.

Social Media is a great democratic tool for science that opens an much more accessible door to the world of science, making it easier for scientists, science lovers and the wider general public to get their daily dose of latest scientific news. Many of these start their own YouTube channels or blogs to spread the word yet further.

One of them was Marco Zozaya, a boy from Mexico who made his first viral science video at the age of 12. His dramatic and visually appealing denial of connection between vaccinations and autism gained more than eight million views on Facebook and was featured in several online newspapers.

Education or Entertainment?

Despite the staggering numbers of followers, many of the science communicators express some doubts about its educational value. The main reason is that the videos or memes have to be highly engaging, striking and noticeable to gain the attention of wide audience.

The basic rule to create an engaging science-based content is to make people feel like they’re talking to their friends, rather than being in a chemistry class. Popular science blogger Yvette d’Entremont criticizes that there is a lot of bad science online. Successful scientific content must be “information-light and punchline-heavy”. Accessibility is important without dumbing down or providing misinformation.

Video Credit: YouTube | SciShow

Even Marco Zozaya expressed some disappointment with social media as he stated that the scientific aspect is not what people loved the most about his videos. It’s rather the entertainment and controversy that makes scientific content look appealing. Zozaya also said that when he started focusing on more informative and less entertaining content, the popularity of his videos dropped noticeably.

For instance, YouTube channel SciShow includes in its list of the most popular content videos answering the question “Why Do We Have Butt Hair?” and following up the viral photograph of the dress that unleashed the wave of popularity as people were arguing whether they are black and blue or white and gold. Although they use scientific knowledge to prove their points, the topic must be striking and the video visually appealing to gain the popularity.

Science in media and fake news

The internet is an unregulated space which can be easily accessed by anyone, which might be another problematic issue for online science. In comparison to printed media, online sources are not categorized by their value, accuracy or truthfulness as authors don’t have the responsibility to follow a specific methodology in order to be published. In search engine, all the links appear equal and credibility of sources and facts leave a lot more room for error.

In a book or a printed magazine, there is an editor in charge of the content order who helps us decide what is worth reading and which issue is more significant than others. On the internet, this responsibility lays on the audience themselves. The fairly inexpensive access causes a high competition and as science communicators state, it’s the drama rather than science that makes us click.

These are ideal conditions for the rise of fake news. Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy and Sinan Aral conducted an experiment in which they spread false news on Twitter and found out that they were more successful than the true ones. They reached more people and spread much faster. The scientists observed that it was the novelty and emotions of false news that made them viral.

Finding the balance

The social media affairs are often featured in the traditional media which can make even bad science relevant and debatable. Although most of us don’t believe that the Earth is flat, Flat Earthers are occupying the agenda and people go out of their way to prove them wrong.

Video Credit: YouTube | CNN

Popular science communicator Bill Nye said in the interview for CNN that even the non-tabloid media are to blame for the spread of bad science. The media logic requires journalists to keep their articles balanced and objective, although these ideal states are unreachable in online. Journalists tend to put the information in context. If they don’t have the sufficient scientific background themselves, they engage the opposite opinions to create a seeming balance and use expert or credible sources of opinion or facts.

However, this practice allowed climate change deniers to enter the public sphere as they serve as the media opposition in interviews with scientists. Bill Nye criticizes that this seeming balance between two people in the studio doesn’t reflect the reality where 97% scientists agree on the climate change existence.

How to tackle fake news?

Even the accessible and entertaining form of science on social media requires responsible use. The crucial thing is to pay attention to sources. A few seconds of googling can reveal what pages are likely to share such information and whether the communicator’s background is reliable. It’s also unnecessary to question the intention of the message. Who might be interested in spreading this to the wide public? Does it support any business interests? Only after this small personal research should we  share the content without contributing to the fake news expansion.

This is far more achievable with a topic like science where things can be backed up by proof and evidence. Facts about climate change for example speak louder and are more usable than opinions about it, so be sure to double check what you read!

By Eliška Olšáková - Online Journalism Intern