Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Evaluating the Impact of Facebook's Ban on Vaccine Misinformation
A new Facebook policy has banned misinformation about all vaccines on its platform. Villanova University professor Jie Xu, PhD, who specializes in science and health communication, examined this decision. "On one hand, there clearly is a lot of mis/disinformation on social media regarding vaccines; some of them are simply uninformed and, of course, harmful to public health," said Dr. Xu. "On the other hand, many details relating to the COVID-19 vaccine, in my view, are still open to scientific debate." So, what determines what is labelled misinformation? Dr. Xu believes this is a complicated determination. "Science itself is evolving with falsification and revision to previous claims when new evidence comes in," Dr. Xu noted. "Who is to say that some claims deemed true at this moment won't be overturned in the future? What are the standards to be used in defining what is true information or misinformation? And perhaps more importantly, who are the 'fact-checkers' that are considered trustworthy to the majority of Americans?" However, there are some benefits to Facebook's decision. "On a more positive note, there is some preliminary evidence indicating that labeling misinformation on social media may help to alleviate the negative influence of vaccine misinformation claims," Dr. Xu said. "The challenge is that the people that are most susceptible to misinformation, and those that health professionals really want to reach out to, are the ones that have the least level of trust on this type of intervention. In some corners, this will likely to be viewed as violation to free speech and perhaps backfire." How does Facebook's banning align with free speech? "My understanding of free speech is that it's not that we don't pay a price for it—unless it's inciting violence, most information has been allowed to flow relatively freely—but it's that the alternative could be much worse," said Dr. Xu. "At the end of the day, we need to create an environment in which honest, open and critical conversations are welcomed, and we do need each other to find the truth."
Villanova Professor Discusses the Presidency and Future Use of Social Media
During his presidency, Donald Trump heavily utilized Twitter and other social media platforms as a key communication mechanism. But President Joe Biden’s use of social media will likely look very different according to Villanova University political science professor Matt Kerbel, PhD. “I think we’re going to see a return to something resembling normalcy in the way President Biden communicates with the public and runs his office,” says Dr. Kerbel. “President Trump was singular in his ability to use Twitter as a mouthpiece for his unfiltered thoughts because that was his brand and the basis for his campaign and presidency. Social media was an extension of his personality and a forum to amplify his message.” But President Biden’s campaign did not follow the same strategy. Dr. Kerbel predicts his social media use will vastly differ: “I expect President Biden to use social media to communicate his message of unity and publicize his plans and accomplishments. Expect a return to routine press conferences and planned media events along with social media outreach resembling what we’ve seen from the transition team.” Dr. Kerbel is an expert on political communication, including how politicians or political parties utilize traditional and new media. Due to his experience as a television and radio writer, researcher and author, he is frequently interviewed regarding politics and the media. He also writes political analyses for his blog, Wolves and Sheep.
Examining the Popularity of the Bernie Sanders Meme
The image is a familiar one to millions across the country: Senator Bernie Sanders sitting with his legs crossed and arms across his chest—wearing a face mask, warm coat and knitted mittens—and watching as Joe Biden was sworn in as the 46th president of the United States on January 20, 2021. Two weeks later, however, the photo looks different. That's because very quickly that inauguration snapshot became an internet sensation, with people photoshopping it to create social media memes—placing Senator Sanders in famous paintings or scenes in movies ranging from the Breakfast Club to Star Trek. But what it is that draws people to these scenes and motivates them to create memes? Charles L. Folk, PhD, a professor of psychological and brain sciences at Villanova University, discusses the psychology behind it all. “Scenes and people activate ‘schemas’ in our memory,” says Dr. Folk. “Schemas are organized structures of knowledge, stored in memory, that are built up through experience. For example, we all have a ‘restaurant’ schema that stores information about the things that are typically in restaurants and the kinds of interactions we can expect in a restaurant.” Research suggests that our attention is drawn to objects that are incongruous with the “context” of a scene, Dr. Folk notes. “Thus, if we see a bedroom scene, our bedroom schema is activated, and our attention would be drawn to an object that is incongruent with that schema—like a toaster in a bedroom scene.” Dr. Folk shares that we have schemas for people as well. “Seeing Bernie Sanders activates our Bernie schema,” he says. “Bernie, in particular, has a very unique schema—so just seeing the picture of Bernie with his Vermont mittens is interesting/humorous because it is quite consistent with our schema of him.” “However, activating our Bernie schema in the context of an incongruent scene schema—like Bernie sitting on the bridge of the Starship Enterprise or a well-known movie set/scene—is particularly alluring precisely because of that incongruity,” continues Dr. Folk. Dr. Folk notes that the development of the app that can place the Bernie meme anywhere in Google Maps motivates people further to create their own versions of outrageous incongruity. “This contributes to the viral nature of the meme,” Dr. Folk says.
Alternative Data Can Offer Insight into GameStop Action on Wall Street
Thomas Shohfi, an assistant professor in the Lally School of Management at Rensselaer, says that looking at alternative data can offer important insights into the turbocharged trading of GameStop. “Volatility in options on GameStop, Nokia, and AMC is exploding,” says Shohfi. “Short sellers are taking massive losses, covering their positions and pushing the stocks even higher. WallStreetBetters keep looking for soft spots in the hedge fund short portfolios to ‘blow up’ their value again and again. It’s a mob-fund mentality.” Working with a former student, Shohfi has analyzed trends from the WallStreetBets subreddit and other social media platforms. He can provide an astute understanding as to how investors have reached this moment, why this has happened, and what the impact that this event will have in the future. “Practitioners, investors, and analysts are always looking for an advantage,” according to Shohfi. “The biggest advantage that we see today is through alternative data. It’s just a rich environment to observe human behavior, incentives, and gender and disclosure effects that affect capital markets like we have seen with GameStop.”
On January 06, America watched with shock as a mob of protesters stormed the gates in Washington, D.C. and invaded the Capitol buildings. For hours, the rioters looted and occupied America’s halls of power and though some were apprehended, many found a way to get out and get back home avoiding arrest. However, media coverage was substantial and some of the protesters were even bold enough to be caught posing for social media. Slowly, authorities are tracking them down, and Dr. Derek Riley, an expert at Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE) in the areas of computer science and deep learning, has been explaining how artificial intelligence (AI) technology that’s taught at MSOE is capable of enabling law enforcement's efforts to identify individuals from pictures. "With these AI systems, we’ll show it example photos and we’ll say, 'OK, this is a nose, this is an ear, this is Billy, this is Susie,'" Riley said. "And over lots and lots of examples and a kind of understanding if they guess right or wrong, the algorithm actually tunes itself to get better and better at recognizing certain things." Dr. Riley says this takes huge amounts of data and often needs a supercomputer—like MSOE's "Rosie"— to process it. To get a computer or software to recognize a specific person takes more fine-tuning, Riley says. He says your smartphone may already do this. "If you have a fingerprint scan or facial recognition to open up your phone, that’s exactly what’s happening," Riley said. "So, they’ve already trained a really large model to do all the basic recognition, and then you provide a device with a fingerprint scanning or pictures of your face at the end to be able to fine-tune that model to recognize exactly who you are." Riley says this technology isn't foolproof—he says human intelligence is needed at every step. He added we might be contributing to the data sources some of the technology needs by posting our pictures to social media. "Folks are uploading their own images constantly and that often is the source of the data that is used to train these really, really large systems," Riley said. January 14 – WTMJ, Ch. 4, NBC News The concept of facial recognition and the use of this technology in law enforcement (and several other applications) is an emerging topic – and if you are a reporter looking to cover this topic or speak with an expert, then let us help. Dr. Derek Riley is an expert in big data, artificial intelligence, computer modeling and simulation, and mobile computing/programming. He’s available to speak with media about facial recognition technology and its many uses. Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Trump, the Capitol, and Social Media – Let our expert answer the questions everyone is asking
Social media played a significant role in the storming of the U.S. Capitol, and its influence in shaping American politics is unlikely to wane, says UConn's Marie Shanahan. And that’s why UConn recently published a piece where Professor Shanahan took on a lot of the trickier questions people are asking in the wake of the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6. In a piece just published – she addresses these key questions: While obscure social media platforms like Parler, Gab, and Telegram have gotten a lot of attention recently as gathering places for the kinds of far-right activists who were instrumental in what happened at the Capitol, most of the planning for that event seems to have taken place in the open, on sites like Facebook and Twitter. To what extent was this event a product of social media? It’s hard to talk about Donald Trump’s presidency without talking about social media. What might change now that he seems to have been permanently banned from the most popular platforms? Speaking of that deplatforming, even though Facebook and Twitter can ban any user who violates their terms of service, is there some validity to the argument that in doing so they’re restricting free speech? What kinds of things can be done to address some of these problems in how the public discourse is shaped? Is repealing Section 230 actually a good idea? The piece is attached and it is an insightful must-read for anyone following these developments. Professor Shanahan is an expert in the intersection of journalism and digital communication technology, online news, and digital discourse. If you are a journalist looking to cover this topic and would like to arrange an interview with Professor Shanahan – simply click on her icon now to arrange a time to talk today.
After an incited and encouraged crowd of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol buildings last earlier this month – social media, or at least the executives that run companies like Twitter and Facebook had had enough and opted to oust President Donald Trump from their platforms. Donald Trump has been ‘deplatformed’ and no longer has easy access to an audience of millions of followers. The concept of deplatforming is being widely debated. And recently, University of Connecticut’s Ugochukwu Etudo was asked to lend his expert perspective on the idea. Does the deplatforming of prominent figures and movement leaders who command large followings online work? That depends on the criteria for the success of the policy intervention. If it means punishing the target of the deplatforming so they pay some price, then without a doubt it works. For example, right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter in 2016 and Facebook in 2019, and subsequently complained about financial hardship. If it means dampening the odds of undesirable social outcomes and unrest, then in the short term, yes. But it is not at all certain in the long term. In the short term, deplatforming serves as a shock or disorienting perturbation to a network of people who are being influenced by the target of the deplatforming. This disorientation can weaken the movement, at least initially. However, there is a risk that deplatforming can delegitimize authoritative sources of information in the eyes of a movement’s followers, and remaining adherents can become even more ardent. Movement leaders can reframe deplatforming as censorship and further proof of a mainstream bias. There is reason to be concerned about the possibility that driving people who engage in harmful online behavior into the shadows further entrenches them in online environments that affirm their biases. Far-right groups and personalities have established a considerable presence on privacy-focused online platforms, including the messaging platform Telegram. This migration is concerning because researchers have known for some time that complete online anonymity is associated with increased harmful behavior online. In deplatforming policymaking, among other considerations, there should be an emphasis on justice, harm reduction and rehabilitation. Policy objectives should be defined transparently and with reasonable expectations in order to avoid some of these negative unintended consequences. January 15 – The Conversation If you’re a journalist covering deplatforming and would like to talk with Ugochukwu Etudo – simply click on his icon today and we’ll arrange an interview today.
As Flexible Voting Options Scrutinized, Expert Says Online Voting Not a Safe Alternative
The popularity of — and controversies surrounding — early voting and mail-in ballots demonstrates a demand for more flexible voting options. But online voting shouldn’t be up for consideration, according to James Hendler, the head of the Institute for Data Exploration and Applications at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Hendler also chairs the U.S. Technology Policy Committee of the Association for Computing Machinery, the world’s largest and oldest society of individuals involved in all aspects of computing. In public statements expressing his own opinion and on behalf of the ACM, Hendler has discussed the vulnerabilities of online voting and the organization’s effort to press against its adoption. Hendler argues that online voting is not, and cannot be made to be, secure against malware and denial of service attacks — and that no app or underlying technology, including blockchain, holds potential to overcome those challenges. "The current state of mobile voting is that we are not ready to deploy it at scale, that it has significant technical and socio-technical aspects, particularly cybersecurity, that we need to worry about, and that there are alternatives,” Hendler said. “The ACM has worked hard as an organization to explain our evidence-based reasoning, and to express the hope that online-voting won’t be used now and in the foreseeable future.” In explaining why online voting is more complicated than online banking, shopping and other common internet activities, Hendler said, “The main reason that online voting is more complex is that it must maintain anonymity, no one is allowed to know how you voted. Securing online voting without providing access to identity is extremely difficult. There are other reasons as well including the staggering cost and the lack of a centralized US authority, but identity management remains the number one.” Under his leadership, the ACM’s U.S. Technology Policy Committee, along with leading organizations and experts in cybersecurity and computing, sent a letter to all governors, secretaries of state and other state election directors urging them not to allow the use of internet or voting app systems. Hendler has extensive experience in policy and advisory positions that consider aspects of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and internet and web technologies as they impact issues such as online voting and the regulation of social media and powerful technologies including facial recognition and artificial intelligence. In light of ongoing political unrest, Hendler is available to speak to diverse aspects of information technology as related to the election, AI in applications like policing, and the politics related to social media.
The events that led to the storming of the Capitol buildings last week have garnered attention from just about every news organization across the planet. Pundits and politicians have weighed in on both sides regarding whether President Trump’s words and actions need to be held accountable for the damage to America’s democratic institutions as well as the five people who have since died as a result of the events that occurred on January 6, 2021. Recently, University of Connecticut’s Richard Ashby Wilson, the Gladstein Chair and Professor of Anthropology and Law and an expert on hate speech and incitement on social media shared his perspective in an Op-Ed published in the Los Angeles Times. It’s a thoughtful, methodical, and excellent piece outlining why he believes, in his expert legal opinion, that President Trump crossed the line and now deserves to be held accountable for his crimes. This is a burning topic, and if you are a journalist looking for objective and expert opinion on this topic – then let us help. Richard Ashby Wilson is available to speak with media about this issue – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Network Science Offers Key Insights into Polarization, Disinformation, and Minority Power
People tend to think of the arena of politics as being driven by human decision and emotions, and therefore unpredictable. But network scientists like Boleslaw Szymanski, a computer science professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, have found that the country’s political activity – from American society’s ever-growing partisan divide to its grappling with the spread of misinformation online – can be explained by abstract and elegant models. These models provide insights — and even answers — to a number of pressing questions: Is increasing access to information driving us apart? Can an entrenched minority ultimately prevail? Could structural changes be made that insulate us from misinformation and reduce the polarization that divides us? Szymanski studies the technical underpinnings of our choices, how we influence one another, and the impact of the algorithms we rely upon to navigate a growing ocean of information. His work has yielded fascinating insights, including research on how a committed minority will overcome less determined opposition and the development of a parameter to determine what drives polarization in Congress. Through his research on the influence of minority opinions, Szymanski found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, it will ultimately be adopted by the majority of the society. “When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said Szymanski, a computer science professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. “Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.” In his present work, Szymanski is researching tools for measuring the level of polarization in specific news sites, search engines, and social media services, and developing remedies, like algorithms that offer better data provenance, detect misinformation, and create internal consistency reasoning, background consistency reasoning, and intra-element consistency reasoning tools. “Informed citizens are the foundation of democracy, but the driving interest of big companies that supply information is to sell us a product,” Szymanski said. “The way they do that on the internet is to repeat what we showed interest in. They’re not interested in a reader’s growth — they’re interested in the reader’s continued attention.” With the political environment becoming increasingly bitter and dubious information becoming ever more prevalent, Szymanski is available to discuss his research on polarization, disinformation, and the power of a committed minority.
