Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research
Date Submitted: May 28, 2023
Date Accepted: Sep 22, 2023
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
What are the discourses concerning misinformation about vaping on Twitter?: A systematic content analysis
ABSTRACT
This study analyses how social media users discuss the topic of misinformation related to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) notably vaping products. While there has been substantial analysis of social media content deemed to spread misinformation about ENDS use, the strategic use of misinformation accusations to undermine opposing views has received limited attention. Through systematic content analysis of social media data collected from Twitter, we find that pro-vape users dominate the platform regarding discussions about misinformation about vaping. This most often involves fact-checking concerns about vaping and discrediting assessments about the health impacts. We conclude that terms like 'fact check', 'misinformation', ‘fake news’, and 'disinformation' have become weaponized and co-opted by pro-vaping actors to delegitimize criticisms about vaping, and to increase confusion about the potential health risks. The implications for effective health education and communication about vaping are discussed.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.