The internet has become a toxic source of scientific disinformation.

It has been some time since those seeking information on the internet could rely on what they found there. The surge of disinformation has made social media virtually useless as a source of fact-based information.

Take, as an example that affects all of us, disinformation masquerading as scientific fact. The decision to discontinue federal grants for the development of mRNA vaccines was recently announced by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. It derives from his well-known anti-vaccine stance that led to multiple untrue statements about their safety and efficacy, leaving infectious disease experts aghast. How would the public, who likely have little if any instruction on how to evaluate such information, begin to counter Kennedy’s lack of evidence that mRNA vaccines are dangerous and demand that his decision be reversed?

If you are disposed to suspect the safety of vaccines, multiple social media sites will confirm your suspicions. Popular ones like Facebook have been slow to counter RFK’s unwarranted claims about the mRNA-derived Covid-19 vaccine that saved millions of lives, kept millions out of the hospital, and is regarded by experts as one of the greatest scientific achievements in preventing serious illness and death.

It relies on consensus, instead of what’s accurate.

Yet on social media, the voices of vaccine skeptics have drowned out the authorities who have the hard evidence that Kennedy’s assertions about mRNA vaccines are untrue.

The measles vaccine has suffered a similar fate. In 2000, the U.S. declared that measles had disappeared, the direct result of childhood vaccination. With doubts seeded by Kennedy, who in 2004 said the vaccine was not “safety tested,” 1,356 cases were reported in 41 jurisdictions across the country. Most were attributed to vaccine hesitancy based on disinformation shared on social media.

Instagram barred Kennedy because of his baseless claims, until his run for president in 2023 then his appointment to Trump’s cabinet.

Meta – owner of Facebook, Instagram, Threads – employed third-party fact checkers until January of this year. Although fact checkers were often slow in removing questionable content, they were at least in place. They now use a “community model” where users can add context or corrections to their posts. (X has been doing this for some time.) The model has significant deficits: It relies on consensus, which means it’s “what most people think” instead of what’s objectively accurate.

The reality is that only we, the consumers of information, are the answer to ensuring the most dangerous disinformation posts are quickly refuted and never shared. Consider tools like Politifact (politifact.com), Factcheck.org, Reuters Fact Check (reuters.com), AP Fact Checker (apnews.com/hub/fact-checking), Washington Post Fact Checker (washingtonpost.com), Snopes (snopes.com) and RumorGuard (rumorguard.com). Not only do they check the facts, they show their work.

SUSAN MEISTER is the founder of the Monterey County Media Literacy Coalition (of which the Weekly is a member).