@joanagsa @ERC_Research

One of the really tricky things about this type of research--which isn't really covered in the highlight--is how to distinguish different models for why "disinformation" is shared.

In particular, the key question to me seems to be whether truth content matters, or whether it's purely a difference in style: disinformation tends to be styled a certain way, but if accurate information appears that bears superficial resemblance to that style, does that actually matter?

For instance, if you have a surprising important-if-true bit of information, does it matter to sharing patterns *whether* it is true? Of course disinformation has an advantage in that it can hit the surprising-and-important buttons harder (being unconstrained by reality and all). But if people who avoid sharing disinformation are actually just avoiding sharing *anything* that isn't common knowledge and widely accepted (or is only personal), that raises the question of how anyone would learn anything surprising to begin with, at least via social media.

Given that we exist in a world with both conspiracies and conspiracy theories, and with claims that fall into all four categories of widely-believed-and-true, widely-believed-and-false, counter-mainstream-and-true, and counter-mainstream-and-false, understanding what (if anything) selectively enriches for the true/false signal independent of the others is of the greatest benefit to society.