The Quack Social Media Pipeline for Experts Online
While watching a medfluencer do an ad for a “detox meal kit”, after the initial feeling of “wow this is horrifying”, I couldn’t help but think - science communicators who actually care about accuracy could make so much money if we just … didn’t… care? There lies the problem. Misinformation is profitable, truthfulness and moral scruples… isn’t.
Something I’ve noticed in the science and medfluencer space is a quack pipeline effect. Even folks who start out as good information sources… get pulled off course. Because attention is money. And brands? They prefer influencers with higher engagement when choosing partners. But what gets engagement online? Simple, sensational, emotionally charged content. Which is more likely to contribute to misinformation.
So you end up with this vicious cycle - experts start off sharing good information. Then, when they get bad reach, they pivot to what works in the algorithm, and end up in the quack pipeline, becoming sources of the misinformation they initially checked online to address, propped up, inadvertently in many cases, by the industries they operate in. Even from brands who purportedly care about science. Maybe an unpopular opinion, I think they care more about the appearance that they care. And the halo effect these influencers will give them. Because otherwise, in my opinion, they would do a better job vetting who they fund.
Trend to watch out for within the Quack Social Media Pipeline: Performative Debunking. Coined by Michelle Wong PhD over at Labmuffin Beauty Science. A marketing strategy where an individual or entity claims to correct misinformation but, in reality, uses the act of correcting to gain attention, support, or avoid scrutiny, often while being a source of or complicit in spreading misinformation themselves. This tactic leverages the public's increasing interest in fighting misinformation by falsely presenting an appearance of expertise and moral righteousness, making it harder to identify actual misinformation from those who "debunk" it.
Meanwhile, the folks trying to stay accurate? They’re swimming upstream. Because the incentives - time, money, visibility - are stacked against them. This isn’t just about bad actors. It’s about a system that rewards misinformation over truthfulness.