NYU Digital Transformation of Business Model Annotated Bibliography

1) identify one academic or journalistic article relevant to the subject’s core concept: “the complex relationship between the technology industries, the economy, and society”

2) appropriately enter the bibliographic information (“metadata”) describing the article in Zotero

3) writing a “critical review” of the article that:

a) provides the URL of your Zotero item

b) explains how the article relates to the subject

c) set out what its main argument is

d) explores the article’s strengths and weaknesses – both in terms of the quality of the argument and the quality of the writing. This can include a discussion of whether it is an academic article or a journalistic article; the strengths and weaknesses of academic vs journalistic writing; whether the author has connections to relevant organisations that might influence their perspective, whether the author is known for controversial views, etc.

COVID-l9 and misinformation- Is censorship of social media a
remedy to the spread of medical misinformation?
In our post-modern context, whereby technology is a fundamental pillar of information
dissemination and consumption, the spread of misinformation is an imminent threat to public
discourse. In week 5 we will discuss the dangers of disinformation, using the example of
Vaidhyanatha’s The disinformation machine (2018), which exposes Facebook’s role in the 2O16
American election. Facebook, as well as a plethora of other social media platforms, affords the
ability to target segments of population, such as American voters. Whilst this affordance can be
harmless, and even advantageous for commercial use; for it’s ‘low cost, ease of use, efficiency,
effectiveness, and responsiveness’ (Vaidhyanatha,20l8, p96), targeting specific political or medical
information to select groups creates dangerous opportunities for propaganda and bias information
ecosystems (Vaidhyanatha,2018, p95). Niemiec,in COVID- I9 and misinformation (202O), explores
how censorship contributes to this threat to civic discourse through the creation of information
ecosystems.
The ease at which communication platforms, and their algorithms, allow for the spread of
misinformation is detrimental to public discourse. Niemiec acknowledges the ‘rapid proliferation’
of ‘politically bias’information is a threat to public discourse (Niemiec,2020,pl)lln relation to
the COVID-I9 pandemic, Niemiec (2020, pl) declares the spread of information, or rather
misinformation, as an ‘infodemic’. Simultaneously, she challenges the offered solution of
censorship. The article critiques censorship for breaching freedom of speech commitments that
‘contradict the very idea of communication networks’ (Niemiec,2020, p2). The article elaborates
this perspective by suggesting that censorship is politically bias, therein, paradoxically, creating
misinformation by limiting users to one sided arguments.
Arguably, Niemiec offers a strong argument regarding minimising censorship across social media
platforms. Her work is well-written, concise and straight to the point. Niemiec clearly argues
censorship, in regards to the COVID-19 Pandemic, is equally as threatening to the public sphere as
are the effects of misinformation. Social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter and Youtube,
have ‘actively combat’ the spread of misinformation during the duration of the pandemic through
censorship (Niemiec, 2020, p2). This has included removing content which contradicts the advice
and information provided by health authorities, including WHO. Whilst this approach may seem
necessary and appropriate, Niemiec argues that such censorship creates medical bias by only
offering users one perspective. Throughout history, advancements in science and society have been
made due to people challenging the status quo. Niemiec offers the idea that if policies, views or
opinions are not critiqued, errors may not be corrected and therefore advancements will not be
made. As such, Niemiec demonstrates that censorship prohibits discussion and creates bias
ecosystems of information and, therefore, hinders society’s growth.
Unfortunately, Niemiec’s weak alternative approaches to ‘counteract the spread of
misinformation’ (2020,p1) demonstrates the need for censorship. Rather than calling for changes in
how platforms handle the spread of misinformation, Niemiec shifts the blame to unquestioning
consumer’s of information. Niemiec (2020, p3) argues users should better understand the ‘functions
of social media’ to be a business model intended to make profit. Despite accurately reflecting both
sides of the censorship argument, Niemiec lacks empathy for naive users of social mediatt is unfair
to assume uneducated users have the ability to decipher what information is factual and which is
misleading, especially considering the broad accessibility of the online public sphere in such
unprecedented times. I
To begin her article Niemiec (2020, pl) poses the question, is censorship of social media a remedy
to the spread of medical misinformation?’. Whilst the article is written through an anti-censorship
lens, the lack of practical, alternate options to combat medical misinformation demonstrates that, for
now, censorship is a viable solution to protect public discourse. As such, the censorship of social
media is a remedy to the spread of medical misinformation.
Word count: 621
Reference List
Niemiec. (2020). COVID-19 and misinformation: Is censorship of social media a remedy to the
spread of medical misinformation? EMBO Reports,2I(ll),e51420-e51420. https://doi.org/
I O . I 5252 I embr .2O20 5 | 420
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2018b). The disinformation machine. In Antisocial media: How Facebook
disconnects us and undermines democracy (pp.175-195). Oxford University Press