News
Climate misinformation is rife on social media – and poised to get worse
Meta’s decision to reduce fact-checking can exacerbate climate misinformation during disasters, leaving users to navigate a landscape prone to false claims, undermining public understanding and complicating crisis management.
The decision by Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, to end its fact-checking program and otherwise reduce content moderation raises the question of what content on those social media platforms will look like going forward.
One worrisome possibility is that the change could open the floodgates to more climate misinformation on Meta’s apps, including misleading or out-of-context claims during disasters.
In 2020, Meta rolled out its Climate Science Information Center on Facebook to respond to climate misinformation. Currently, third-party fact-checkers working with Meta flag false and misleading posts. Meta then decides whether to attach a warning label to them and reduce how much the company’s algorithms promote them.
Meta’s policies have fact-checkers prioritizing “viral false information,” hoaxes and “provably false claims that are timely, trending and consequential.” Meta explicitly states that this excludes opinion content that does not include false claims.
The company will end its agreements with U.S.-based third-party fact-checking organizations in March 2025. The planned changes slated to roll out to U.S. users won’t affect fact-checking content viewed by users outside the U.S.. The tech industry faces greater regulations on combating misinformation in other regions, such as the European Union.
Fact-checking curbs climate misinformation
I study climate change communication. Fact-checks can help correct political misinformation, including on climate change. People’s beliefs, ideology and prior knowledge affect how well fact-checks work. Finding messages that align with the target audience’s values, along with using trusted messengers – like climate-friendly conservative groups when speaking to political conservatives – can help. So, too, does appealing to shared social norms, like limiting harm to future generations.
Heat waves, flooding and fire conditions are becoming more common and catastrophic as the world warms. Extreme weather events often lead to a spike in social media attention to climate change. Social media posting peaks during a crisis but drops off quickly.
Low-quality fake images created using generative artificial intelligence software, so-called AI slop, is adding to confusion online during crises. For example, in the aftermath of back-to-back hurricanes Helene and Milton last fall, fake AI-generated images of a young girl, shivering and holding a puppy in a boat, went viral on the social media platform X. The spread of rumors and misinformation hindered the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disaster response.
What distinguishes misinformation from disinformation is the intent of the person or group doing the sharing. Misinformation is false or misleading content shared without active intention to mislead. On the other hand, disinformation is misleading or false information shared with the intent to deceive.
Disinformation campaigns are already happening. In the wake of the 2023 Hawaii wildfires, researchers at Recorded Future, Microsoft, NewsGuard and the University of Maryland independently documented an organized propaganda campaign by Chinese operatives targeting U.S. social media users.
To be sure, the spread of misleading information and rumors on social media is not a new problem. However, not all content moderation approaches have the same effect, and platforms are changing how they address misinformation. For example, X replaced its rumor controls that had helped debunk false claims during fast-moving disasters with user-generated labels, Community Notes. https://www.youtube.com/embed/xgJ-xwXZ0zA?wmode=transparent&start=0 A report found a surge of climate change misinformation on X in the wake of Elon Musk’s acquisition of the social media platform on Oct. 27, 2022.
False claims can go viral rapidly
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg specifically cited X’s Community Notes as an inspiration for his company’s planned changes in content moderation. The trouble is false claims go viral quickly. Recent research has found that the response time of crowd-sourced Community Notes is too slow to stop the diffusion of viral misinformation early in its online life cycle – the point when posts are most widely viewed.
In the case of climate change, misinformation is “sticky.” It is especially hard to dislodge falsehoods from people’s minds once they encounter them repeatedly. Furthermore, climate misinformation undermines public acceptance of established science. Just sharing more facts does not work to combat the spread of false claims about climate change.
Explaining that scientists agree that climate change is happening and is caused by humans burning greenhouse gases can prepare people to avoid misinformation. Psychology research indicates that this “inoculation” approach works to reduce the influence of false claims to the contrary.
That’s why warning people against climate misinformation before it goes viral is crucial for curbing its spread. Doing so is likely to get harder on Meta’s apps.
Social media users as sole debunkers
With the coming changes, you will be the fact-checker on Facebook and other Meta apps. The most effective way to pre-bunk against climate misinformation is to lead with accurate information, then warn briefly about the myth – but only state it once. Follow this with explaining why it is inaccurate and repeat the truth.
During climate change-fueled disasters, people are desperate for accurate and reliable information to make lifesaving decisions. Doing so is already challenging enough, like when the Los Angeles County’s emergency management office erroneously sent an evacuation alert to 10 million people on Jan. 9, 2025.
Crowd-sourced debunking is no match for organized disinformation campaigns in the midst of information vacuums during a crisis. The conditions for the rapid and unchecked spread of misleading, and outright false, content could get worse with Meta’s content moderation policy and algorithmic changes.
The U.S. public by and large wants the industry to moderate false information online. Instead, it seems that big tech companies are leaving fact-checking to their users.
Jill Hopke, Associate Professor of Journalism, DePaul University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
STM Blog
U.S. News Releases 2026-2027 Best High Schools Rankings, Highlighting Charter and STEM Standouts
U.S. News & World Report has released its 2026-2027 Best High Schools rankings, giving families a fresh, data-driven snapshot of top-performing public, charter, and STEM high schools across the country. The new edition evaluated about 27,000 eligible public high schools, with nearly 18,000 schools ultimately ranked at national, state, and local levels.
At the state level, Massachusetts again led the nation, with 47% of its high schools landing in the top quarter nationally. New Jersey followed at 44%, with Maryland close behind at 43%. Metro-area results also highlighted standout regions with high concentrations of top-ranked schools, including San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, California (60%), McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas (59%), and Milwaukee-Waukesha, Wisconsin (56%)—each with the highest shares of ranked schools placing in the top 25% nationwide.
Charter and STEM schools were a major storyline in the 2026-2027 release. While California (96) and New Jersey (50) led the nation in the number of ranked STEM schools, charter schools claimed 23% of the national top 100. U.S. News pointed to Arizona’s BASIS charter network as a key example of that performance, noting it secured three of the country’s top five STEM schools and placed 12 campuses in the overall national top 100.
U.S. News said the rankings are based on six performance indicators, including state assessment achievement, graduation rates, and college readiness measures such as AP and IB participation and performance. The methodology was implemented with RTI International using data from the 2023-2024 school year.
Source: U.S. News & World Report
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
health and wellness
Lactose intolerance is actually the human norm – but racism, the US government and business interests have made it into a condition
Lactose intolerance is the global human norm, but Western dietary standards, government policies and commercial interests helped frame it as a medical deficiency.
Hilary Smith, University of Denver
Lactose intolerance makes drinking milk or eating ice cream a literal pain. For some people, eating a dairy treat can lead to bloating, nausea and diarrhea. You might’ve experienced its effects yourself. If so, you may think of lactose intolerance as a defect rather than the norm.
But did you know that most people in the world today are lactose intolerant – and that the condition itself was invented in the 1960s?
“Surely you mean discovered, not invented,” I hear you saying. I don’t. As a historian who has traced the origins of nutrition-science ideas, I have chosen the word “invented” on purpose.
Inventing lactose intolerance
Variations in people’s ability to digest lactose first came to scientists’ attention after American dairy producers found a way to rid themselves of a postwar milk surplus. To offload what they couldn’t sell, they looked to the government to intervene. And it did, buying the excess and embedding it in school lunches and other places with publicly funded meals.
Suddenly, many people who had not habitually drunk milk were consuming it regularly, including not only some Americans but also people overseas. Part of that same milk surplus found its way into school lunches in places such as Japan and Taiwan in the 1950s as the American government began to sell milk to allies during the Cold War.
Many of the groups drinking milk regularly for the first time did not like it. In fact, it made them feel sick. Intrigued, scientists set up experiments to figure out why. In a 1966 study comparing how Black and white people incarcerated in Baltimore metabolized lactose, researchers found that Black participants had lower levels of lactase – the enzyme that breaks down lactose – in their guts.
To the white scientists conducting this study, the trouble that the Black prisoners had digesting milk looked like an “inborn error of metabolism.” They assumed that the normal human state was lactose tolerance and that the lactose intolerant had inherited a genetic mutation.
It was only after years more work with research participants of many races that experts realized that, as one National Institutes of Health official put it in 1981, “lactose intolerance is a normal physiological condition, shared by every adult animal except for certain ethnic and racial groups in man.” People of northern European descent, it turned out, were the weird ones. It was their ancestors who had passed down a genetic mutation – one that made them able to digest milk after infancy.
In short, what scientists discovered in the 1960s was that different bodies process milk differently. What they invented was the idea that lactose intolerance is a defect. Accepting that framing would mean nearly two-thirds of the human population – the estimated prevalence of lactose intolerance worldwide – is defective.
Instead of acknowledging that dairy-free diets can be healthy, people innovated ways to overcome this supposed disability so everyone could consume more.
Nutritional imperialism
Lactose intolerance is one example of what I call nutritional imperialism: a way of thinking that treats white diets as the norm and everyone else’s as an aberration.
Nutritional imperialism was common in the 20th century, when scientists thought that not only milk-rich but also meat-heavy diets were best; they considered diets outside of the United States and Europe too vegetarian. Some also argued that wheat flour, not rice, ought to be the universal staple.
The same bias applied to bodies. Besides faulty lactose digestion, nonwhite bodies were accused of other failures, too, such as aldehyde dehydrogenase deficiency, an inability to digest alcohol quickly. The less technical term for this may be more familiar: Asian flush.
Such differences might have been thought of as variety, just another way of being human. Instead, each became a deficiency.
Many people today have inherited and perpetuated this way of thinking without knowing it, including those who are deemed deficient by it. In 1959, the director of Japan’s nutrition bureau declared that “rice-eating peoples” such as the Japanese were “resigned and passive” and could correct this by imitating Western diets and switching to wheat.
Today, the most prominent scientist promoting the idea that Asian flush is a disease is a geneticist of Taiwanese descent who started a research consortium to study “the most common human enzymopathy in the world.”
The Chinese Nutrition Society placed a tall glass of milk next to its 2022 Food Guide Plate – never mind estimates that the vast majority of Han Chinese, the largest ethnic group in China and worldwide, are lactose intolerant.
Turning sickness back into difference
Science that pathologizes difference helps racism persist.
In recent years, white supremacists have embraced the concept of lactose intolerance as a distinguishing debility of nonwhite people. Social media users have copied and pasted a map of the geographic distribution of lactose tolerance originally published in the scientific journal Nature into racist chat threads on the online discussion forum 4chan.
In 2017, internet trolls disrupted an anti-racist art installation with neo-Nazi chants and messily downed jugs of milk to accentuate their white identity.
Turning a lactose-digestion difference into a deficiency has done more to reinforce narratives of racial hierarchy than to improve public health. So here’s a suggestion: If you enjoy eating dairy, keep doing it; if you don’t, don’t – and know that there is nothing wrong with you.
Hilary Smith, Professor of History, University of Denver
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
Automotive
Finding the Right SUV for Your Lifestyle
Finding the Right SUV: While what’s new, popular or different can certainly play a role in car buying decisions, knowing how you actually live can help you choose the right vehicle for your lifestyle. From length of work commutes to whether you’ll be hauling sports gear, family members or other cargo on a regular basis, figuring out the right fit comes down to identifying your daily habits.
Finding the Right SUV for Your Lifestyle
(Feature Impact) You’ve likely heard the phrase “bigger is better,” but when it comes to vehicle shopping, that may not actually be the case. While what’s new, popular or different can certainly play a role in car buying decisions, knowing how you actually live can help you choose the right vehicle for your lifestyle.
Watch this video to learn more
“SUVs and crossovers dominate the market today, and it’s easy to gravitate toward the newest and biggest models,” said James Bell, head of corporate communications for Kia America, “but the right vehicle isn’t what’s trending; it’s about your daily commute, your weekend road trip and hauling kids and gear. For a lot of drivers, a smaller, more affordable SUV like the KIA Seltos is simply a better fit.”
From length of work commutes to whether you’ll be hauling sports gear, family members or other cargo on a regular basis, figuring out the right fit comes down to identifying your daily habits.
“Start by being honest about how you use your vehicle every day,” Bell said. “A lot of drivers overbuy, paying for space and features that they rarely, if ever, use. The right SUV can save money without sacrificing comfort or functionality.”
For example, the 2027 Kia Seltos is available in five trim levels and offers best-in-class interior room and max cargo room as well as a 10-year, 100,000-mile industry-leading limited powertrain warranty, making it an option for car buyers with both extended commutes and hauling capacity needs. Plus, for weekend warriors, the turbocharged X-Line model comes equipped with multi-terrain all-wheel drive.
To explore your options and find an SUV to fit your needs, visit Kia.com.
SOURCE:
🚗 Stay in the driver’s seat with the latest automotive news, vehicle reviews, industry updates, recalls, and buying tips. Share your opinions in the comments and subscribe to the STM Daily News newsletter for the latest Consumer Corner Automotive stories delivered straight to your inbox.
