TikTok carries more disinformation than major social rivals, study finds - Mander

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/49167312 [https://mander.xyz/post/49167312] > > The consortium led by Science Feedback and including Newtral, Demagog SK, Pravda, Check First, and the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) presents the second large-scale, cross-platform, scientifically sound measurement of Structural Indicators of Disinformation. These indicators assess how permeable Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) are to mis-/disinformation in Europe, how influential repeat misinformers are relative > to credible sources, and the extent to which such content is monetised. > > Here is the report: Second Measurement of the State of Online Disinformation in Europe on Very Large Online Platforms - (pdf) [https://web.archive.org/web/20260319164956/https://science.feedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/SIMODS-Report-2.pdf] > > Key findings: > > - Prevalence: TikTok continues to show the highest prevalence of mis/disinformation (~25% of exposure-weighted posts), up from ~20% in the first measurement. YouTube also saw a notable increase, from ~8.5% to ~12%. Three platforms (TikTok, X/Twitter, and YouTube) now contain more problematic content than credible content in our samples. > - Misinformation premium: The interaction advantage of low-credibility accounts over high-credibility ones persisted or worsened on most platforms. On X/Twitter it rose from ~4× to ~10×, and on YouTube from ~8.5× to ~11×. LinkedIn remains the only exception where no significant premium is observed. > - Monetisation: Platform opacity remains the rule. Where data allowed inference (YouTube and Facebook), a high proportion of eligible low-credibility accounts appear monetised (81% on YouTube and 22% on Facebook) indicating that demonetisation policies are not working as intended. > - AI-generated mis/disinformation: One in four mis/disinformation posts on TikTok (24%) and nearly one in five on YouTube (19%) contain AI-generated content. Over 83% of these carry no label. Health misinformation dominates on both platforms. > - Audience growth: On most platforms, no significant difference in follower growth was found between high- and low-credibility accounts. X/Twitter is the exception: low-credibility accounts are growing their audiences at roughly 3.5 times the rate of high-credibility ones. > > Web Archive link [https://web.archive.org/web/20260319165229/https://www.euractiv.com/news/tiktok-carries-more-disinformation-than-major-social-rivals-study-finds/]