Latest news with #CatherineMcQueen
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Why we fall for fake health information — and how it spreads faster than facts
Should you share that health-related Instagram post? (Catherine McQueen/Moment via Getty Images) In today's digital world, people routinely turn to the internet for health or medical information. In addition to actively searching online, they often come across health-related information on social media or receive it through emails or messages from family or friends. It can be tempting to share such messages with loved ones — often with the best of intentions. As a global health communication scholar studying the effects of media on health and development, I explore artistic and creative ways to make health information more engaging and accessible, empowering people to make informed decisions. Although there is a fire hose of health-related content online, not all of it is factual. In fact, much of it is inaccurate or misleading, raising a serious health communication problem: Fake health information — whether shared unknowingly and innocently, or deliberately to mislead or cause harm — can be far more captivating than accurate information. This makes it difficult for people to know which sources to trust and which content is worthy of sharing. Fake health information can take many forms. For example, it may be misleading content that distorts facts to frame an issue or individual in a certain context. Or it may be based on false connections, where headlines, visuals or captions don't align with the content. Despite this variation, such content often shares a few common characteristics that make it seem believable and more shareable than facts. For one thing, fake health information often appears to be true because it mixes a grain of truth with misleading claims. For example, early in the COVID-19 pandemic, false rumors suggested that drinking ethanol or bleach could protect people from the virus. While ethanol or bleach can indeed kill viruses on surfaces such as countertops, it is extremely dangerous when it comes into contact with skin or gets inside the body. Another marker of fake health information is that it presents ideas that are simply too good to be true. There is something appealingly counterintuitive in certain types of fake health information that can make people feel they have access to valuable or exclusive knowledge that others may not know. For example, a claim such as 'chocolate helps you lose weight' can be especially appealing because it offers a sense of permission to indulge and taps into a simple, feel-good solution to a complex problem. Such information often spreads faster because it sounds both surprising and hopeful, validating what some people want to believe. Sensationalism also drives the spread of fake health information. For instance, when critics falsely claimed that Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the chief medical adviser to the president at the time, was responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, it generated a lot of public attention. In a study on vaccine hesitancy published in 2020, my colleagues and I found that controversial headlines in news reports that go viral before national vaccination campaigns can discourage parents from getting their children vaccinated. These headlines seem to reveal sensational and secret information that can falsely boost the message's credibility. The internet has created fertile ground for spreading fake health information. Professional-looking websites and social media posts with misleading headlines can lure people into clicking or quickly sharing, which drives more and more readers to the falsehood. People tend to share information they believe is relevant to them or their social circles. In 2019, an article with the false headline 'Ginger is 10,000x more effective at killing cancer than chemo' was shared more than 800,000 times on Facebook. The article contained several factors that make people feel an urgency to react and share without checking the facts: compelling visuals, emotional stories, misleading graphs, quotes from experts with omitted context and outdated content that is recirculated. Visual cues like the logos of reputable organizations or photos of people wearing white medical coats add credibility to these posts. This kind of content is highly shareable, often reaching far more people than scientifically accurate studies that may lack eye-catching headlines or visuals, easy-to-understand words or dramatic storylines. But sharing content without verifying it first has real-world consequences. For example, studies have found that COVID-19-related fake information reduces people's trust in the government and in health care systems, making people less likely to use or seek out health services. Unfounded claims about vaccine side effects have led to reduced vaccination rates globally, fueling the return of dangerous diseases, including measles. Social media misinformation, such as false claims about cinnamon being a treatment for cancer, has caused hospitalizations and even deaths. The spread of health misinformation has reduced cooperation with important prevention and treatment recommendations, prompting a growing need for medical professionals to receive proper training and develop skills to effectively debunk fake health information. In today's era of information overload, when anyone can create and share content, being able to distinguish between credible and misleading health information before sharing is more important than ever. Researchers and public health organizations have outlined several strategies to help people make better-informed decisions. Whether health care consumers come across health information on social media, in an email or through a messaging app, here are three reliable ways to verify its accuracy and credibility before sharing: Use a search engine to cross-check health claims. Never rely on a single source. Instead, enter the health claim into a reputable search engine like Google and see what trusted sources have to say. Prioritize information from established organizations like the World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, United Nations Children's Fund or peer-reviewed journals like The Lancet or Journal of the American Medical Association. If multiple reputable sources agree, the information is more likely to be reliable. Reliable fact-checking websites such as and Snopes can also help root out fake information. Evaluate the source's credibility. A quick way to assess a website's trustworthiness is to check its 'About Us' page. This section usually explains who is behind the content, their mission and their credentials. Also, search the name of the author. Do they have recognized expertise or affiliations with credible institutions? Reliable websites often have domains ending in .gov or .edu, indicating government or educational institutions. Finally, check the publication date. Information on the internet keeps circulating for years and may not be the most accurate or relevant in the present context. If you're still unsure, don't share. If you're still uncertain about the accuracy of a claim, it's better to keep it to yourself. Forwarding unverified information can unintentionally contribute to the spread of misinformation and potentially cause harm, especially when it comes to health. Questioning dubious claims and sharing only verified information not only protects against unsafe behaviors and panic, but it also helps curb the spread of fake health information. At a time when misinformation can spread faster than a virus, taking a moment to pause and fact-check can make a big difference. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Angshuman Kashyap is a doctoral candidate at the Department of Behavioral and Community Health, University of Maryland School of Public Health. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
To attract business, cities should focus less on tax credits and more on making people feel safe
(Stock photo by Catherine McQueen via Getty Images) To attract business investment, American cities and states offer companies billions of dollars in incentives, such as tax credits. As the theory goes, when governments create a business-friendly environment, it encourages investment, leading to job creation and economic growth. While this theory may seem logical on its face, it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. Business investment follows employees, not just the other way around. In fact, our research suggests workers care less about whether a city has business-friendly policies and more about how safe they feel living in it. And interestingly, we found that politics influence people's risk perceptions more than hard data such as crime statistics. Our findings have major implications for cities and businesses. If people choose where to live and work based on perceived safety rather than economic incentives, then entrepreneurs and city leaders may need to rethink how they approach growth and investment. We are management professors who surveyed more than 500 employees and entrepreneurs from across the country to better understand how they rate 25 large U.S. cities on various dimensions of risk. We asked about three different types of risk: risk related to crime, government function and social issues. Risk related to government function includes corruption and instability, while risk related to social issues includes potential infringements on individual rights. We found that people's views of risk weren't driven primarily by objective statistics, such as FBI crime data. Instead, they were shaped by factors such as media representations, word of mouth and geographic stereotypes. For example, studies suggest that crime in Denver has been rising, and U.S. News and World Report recently ranked it as the 10th most dangerous city based on FBI crime reports. However, the employees and entrepreneurs we surveyed ranked Denver as the safest city in the country. We found that political perspectives were the main factor biasing the rankings. For example, conservative-leaning employees and entrepreneurs believed that Portland, Oregon, is dangerous, ranking it as America's ninth-riskiest city. In contrast, those who are liberal-leaning ranked it as the second-safest city in the country. Both of these beliefs can't be accurate. Instead, when basing the ranking on objective crime data from the FBI, U.S. News ranked Portland the 15th most dangerous city in the country. When assessing risk related to how the government functions, conservatives praised politicians in Nashville, Charlotte and Dallas, while the liberals praised those in Denver, Minneapolis and Portland. Similarly, when considering risk related to social issues, conservatives said New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco were 'risky,' while the liberals said Tampa, Miami and Houston should be avoided. Our findings also suggest that political perspectives influence the types of risk that employers and employees care about. For example, conservatives tend to care more about crime-related risk than liberals, and liberals care more about risk related to social issues. We're not advocating that city leaders drop financial incentives altogether, or that employers ignore them. Evidence suggests that financial incentives and other business-friendly policies may be effective at attracting businesses and strengthening local economies. However, our research suggests that when individuals are making important life decisions about where to live, work and invest, a city's level of risk matters. Importantly, beliefs about risk are subjective and are biased by political perspectives. In our view, city leaders must recognize and address concerns about crime, governance and social issues while actively working to improve public perceptions of their cities. Likewise, businesses may want to consider investing in cities that are less politically polarized when making investment decisions. Kaitlyn DeGhetto, Associate Professor of Management, University of Dayton and Zachary Russell, Associate Professor, Management & Entrepreneurship, Xavier University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
17-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Alternative to noncompete agreements under consideration by Legislature
(Stock photo by Catherine McQueen via Getty Images) Although a number of states have passed legislation empowering workers by barring companies from binding them with noncompete agreements, the Florida Legislature is looking at an alternative known as 'garden leave agreements.' A bill (SB 922) proposed by Ormond Beach Republican Tom Leek would establish the framework for these arrangements, through which an employee typically is relieved of duty yet technically remains employed and therefore cannot go to work for a competitor. They are free to tend their gardens, as it were, while retaining pay and benefits. The bill states that these agreements would require advance notice of up to, but no more than, four years before terminating the employment or contractor relationship. The law would only apply to employees most likely to have access to sensitive information, Leek said, as well as to those who make at least twice the annual mean wage of employees in Florida, plus workers party to confidential employer information. Leek, a labor-and-employment attorney, told the Senate Commerce and Tourism Committee on Monday that it was important to distinguish between noncompete agreements, which restrict former employees from certain activities, and a garden leave agreement, whereby the employee keeps the job but provides no services to that employer. Jacksonville Democratic Sen. Tracie Davis noted that most noncompete agreements last between one and two years. Why should the state allow garden leave agreements of up to four years? Leek referenced the moves made by the Federal Trade Commission last year to adopt a comprehensive ban on new noncompetes with all workers, including senior executives (the ban was overturned by a federal judge in Texas last August). 'Florida is poised to become one of the finance capitals of the world,' Leek said. 'And if we want to attract those kinds of clean, high-paying jobs, you have to provide those businesses protection on the investment that they're making and their employees.' Orange County Democratic Sen. Carlos Guillermo Smith noted that noncompete contracts are falling widely into disfavor. As of last fall, four states banned them and 33 restricted their use, according to the Economic Innovation Group. 'Are we not disincentivizing them coming to Florida because, unlike other states, we have strengthened the ability for employers to require noncompete rather than rolling them back like other states,' Smith said. Leek said he didn't believe that was the case. In his own practice, 'I don't see a current trend dialing back restrictive covenants. I saw the federal government try it, and it failed and it didn't happen.' John Navarra was the only member of the public to address the committee. He said he opposes the bill because he fears that while the measure is currently aimed only at employees who have sensitive information, it could spread to additional workers. He mentioned that he has worked as a grocery clerk at a Winn-Dixie. 'What happened if I lost my job at Winn-Dixie and I went to Publix, and I said, 'Please give me a job so that I can put milk on the shelf, something as simple as that, and Publix could not hire me. It's an outrage that the state of Florida would try to keep working people down by limiting their opportunities,' he said. While businesses highly favor noncompete contracts, polls have shown that the majority of Americans don't like them. An IPSOS public opinion survey conducted last May found that 59% of Americans supported the FTC's proposal to ban such agreements. The measure passed on a party-line 6-3 vote, with all Republicans in support and all Democrats dissenting. A House companion has been filed by Tampa Bay area Republican Traci Koster (HB 1219). SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
20-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Republican state senator wants to remove working caps, mandatory breaks for minors
Hillsborough County Republican Sen. Jay Collins filed a bill allowing teens to work more than 30 hours per week. (Stock photo by Catherine McQueen via Getty Images) Republican Sen. Jay Collins of Hillsborough County has filed a bill allowing employers to schedule minors to work at any time and for more than 30 hours per week. SB 918, filed Wednesday afternoon, rehashes Republicans' attempts during the 2024 legislative session to remove break requirements and scheduling limits for teenagers. Although the Legislature passed what was one of the most contested bills last year, the final result requires parents to sign a waiver for 16- and 17-year-olds to work more than 30 hours per week while school is in session and maintain a 30-minute break every four hours of their shift. Collins wants to remove the waiver requirement for older teens and let them work earlier than 6:30 a.m. and after 11 p.m. on school nights. SB 918 would also get rid of the breaks. There is no House counterpart yet. The changes wouldn't only apply to minors over 16. Under the proposal, 14- and 15-year-olds who have graduated from high school, earned a GED, are homeschooled, or attend virtual school could also work longer hours. The senator did not immediately respond to Florida Phoenix's request for comment. Approximately 61,318 of 16- and 17-year-olds who attend school in Florida are also employed, according to an analysis of last year's legislation from the Florida Policy Institute. The group opposed the changes Republicans originally proposed but considered the final version that is now law less harmful.
