Every time you look at any news, you are bound to hear or read something related to the Ebola epidemic. Ebola has claimed the lives of over 4,000 people and it has yet to be securely contained. But what does social media have to do with this in relation to diffusion and social influence?
When it was confirmed that the first case of Ebola appeared in the United States, the mention of Ebola on twitter went from 100 per minute to over 6,000 per minute. The second it was made public that there was a case of Ebola in the US, that information diffused across the world in a matter of minutes. But what influence has that had? I’ll be focusing on the influence it has had to American’s since the articles are about the case in the US. Critics argue that people are starting to panic and misinformation is diffusing very quickly. As horrendous as it has been for the people affected by it, Ebola isn’t something most people need to worry about. Health care in West Africa is not comparable to the infrastructure of the US. Health care system. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the national public health institute of the US, has given several press releases that it is quite difficult to contract Ebola unless you have had close contact with the person infected. Yet many people still believe it is airborne. But with Social Media, news gets spread so incredibly quickly but that also means misinformation spreads just as quick. An interesting comment mentioned in the Time’s article was that people are more likely to believe something they read that a friend posted on social media. Social media is all about connecting with people you know. So even though credible sources say that Ebola is not airborne, if someone close to you contradicts that on facebook, some people are more inclined to believe the people they know, than experts.
Information diffusion has allowed for the majority of the world to say updated on what is happening with the Ebola epidemic but the social influence it has is that it has caused unnecessary fear and panic. Even though the CDC has mentioned multiple times that Ebola cases in the US can be contained much quicker then in West Africa, some people still believe there is a looming threat of Ebola spreading in the US, when in reality that is highly unlikely. They want to take drastic measures like banning all flights from affected countries to the US. Information diffusion has many benefits and allow people to be quickly informed, but there are also down sides as mentioned above. It can have a drastic impact on how it influences people whether it be for good or bad.
How to you think Ebola has been perceived in the media? Are you concerned about your risk of contracting Ebola? Whether you know it’s unlikely or you truly believe it to be a threat to your health, what has caused you to feel that way?
Articles:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/10/11/the-problem-with-ebola-in-the-media/
Fear, Misinformation, and Social Media Complicate Ebola Fight
These days, the news and social media are almost one and the same. Though news is communicated to us mostly from one-sided channels, such as the TV or newspapers, a discussion or debate about it on social media is unavoidable. Thus, it is very interesting that you connect the topic of Ebola to social media and investigate the effect it can have on the perceptions of people about Ebola. It is safe to say that the news about Ebola spreads faster than Ebola itself.
As you stated, people believe something to be true rather from their personal connections than from reliable sources. However, what are reliable sources? Naturally, authority in the sense of doctors are believable, but why would we not believe our best friends? The only difference compared with 100 years ago is that our ‘best friends’ seem closer than they are. I, for example, have friends in South Africa who post about Ebola on social media. This makes the topic feel very close to home, though it is still at the other side of the world. Because social media makes the world seem smaller, it also makes local problems global.
However, this is not necessarily negative. We are lucky enough to live in a healthy and stable environment and are yet scared of Ebola, which originated from developing countries who do not have the means to avoid or fight it. Often, people do not care much about these health problems on the other side of the world but, suddenly, when it may affect us, we are worried and start thinking about it. Although I personally do not yet see Ebola as a personal threat, I think social media increases awareness on this and other health topics and can therefore do wonders in terms of civic engagement for developing countries.
It is indeed a very interesting topic you’ve chosen. Personally, I didn’t hear about Ebola through the news or any other ‘reliable source’ but it came to my notice through social media. The past couple of weeks my Instagram timeline has been full of posts where Ebola has been made fun of. Sometimes I am not sure if they are just ‘jokes’ or that people don’t take the subject seriously at all. I believe because of the attention it got through social media people are tend to take the matter less serious, so the influence of social media has been big as you also stated how it caused panic. But besides causing panic, I also believe the overload of attention it got bacause of that, people are now likely to take the subject not that serious anymore.
In this case I don’t believe I would consider my personal connections more reliable than credible sources, it is more the other way around, because I’ve only seen a lot of posts of my connections which made Ebola look like a joke.
Coming back at your question, I am not (not yet) concerned about my own health right now, as I read in the newspaper I don’t have to be. In addition to that I feel like the people directly around me aren’t either, which makes it even more legit for me.