In an era defined by an endless stream of digital information, we are frequently confronted with bizarre claims regarding everything from climate change and vaccines to nutrition and migration. Our natural impulse is often to step in immediately, armed with dry facts and a sense of moral urgency, desperate to debunk the nonsense. However, Anne-Floor Schölvinck, a dedicated researcher at the Rathenau Instituut, suggests that this instinct to “shout down” misinformation is often counterproductive. In her insightful report, Wikken en weten, she urges a shift in strategy: instead of treating misinformation as an enemy to be defeated with alarmist headlines, we should approach the people behind these claims with genuine curiosity and empathy.
The danger of aggressive fact-checking lies in the psychological phenomenon of the “continued influence effect.” When we highlight a piece of misinformation, even with the noble intention of debunking it, we inadvertently amplify its reach, exposing it to people who otherwise never would have encountered it. More importantly, people often forget the fact-check but retain the lingering, subconscious feeling that “there is no smoke without fire.” Simply by repeating a claim to negate it, we give that claim oxygen, transforming a niche theory into a point of wider public debate and fostering a nagging sense of doubt about established truths like the safety of vaccines or the utility of sunscreen.
Furthermore, we must consider the “backlash effect” of constant alarmism. When media outlets and public figures relentlessly broadcast warnings about how much fake news is circulating, it can ironically trigger a profound, generalized distrust in all information. When people feel bombarded by claims that the internet is a cesspool of lies, they often reach a point of reflexive skepticism, concluding that because they cannot distinguish truth from fiction, it is safer to trust nothing at all. This cynical detachment is arguably more damaging to the fabric of society than the individual false claims themselves, as it alienates people from the very institutions designed to provide clarity.
Shrugging our shoulders and ignoring these conversations is not the solution either, as doing so leaves concerned individuals feeling marginalized and unheard. Instead, Schölvinck argues that the path forward involves focusing on the shared values that underlie our concerns. For instance, parents—regardless of their stance on vaccines—are united by the universal desire to protect their children. By moving away from the “us versus them” mentality of fact-checking and centering conversations on mutual goals and trusted communication channels, we can bridge the gap. It is about validating the human concern rather than validating the factually incorrect detail.
Contrary to popular belief, the problem isn’t inherent to social media itself. Research indicates that the time spent scrolling isn’t the primary driver of scientific skepticism; rather, it is the broader context of an individual’s life experiences, personal networks, and overall media diet that determines how they process information. Those who supplement their digital consumption with a more varied range of traditional sources—like newspapers, books, and radio—tend to show greater resilience against misinformation. The takeaway is that we don’t need fewer digital tools; we simply need to encourage a more diverse and balanced diet of information, moving away from echo chambers that thrive on polarization.
Ultimately, there is surprising optimism to be found in the way real people actually behave. When we look past the sensationalized shouting matches that dominate headlines and social media feeds, we find that the average person is often far more nuanced and thoughtful than the public discourse suggests. Most people are not seeking to spread chaos; they are trying to navigate a complex world. Restoring trust in science won’t happen through a silver-bullet fact-check, but rather through slow, steady efforts to understand the “why” behind people’s beliefs. By looking at their wider frame of reference and showing a genuine interest in their perspectives, we can stop the shouting and start the long, necessary work of rebuilding connection.