arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2504.01991

Disinformation about autism in Latin America and the Caribbean: Mapping 150 false causes and 150 false cures of ASD in conspiracy theory communities on Telegram

Ergon Cugler de Moraes Silva·Arthur Ataide Ferreira Garcia·Guilherme de Almeida·Julie Ricard
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

How do conspiracy theory communities in Latin America and the Caribbean structure, articulate, and sustain the dissemination of disinformation about autism? To answer this question, this research investigates the structuring, articulation, and promotion of autism-related disinformation in conspiracy theory communities in Latin America and the Caribbean. By analyzing publications from 1,659 Telegram communities over ten years (2015 - 2025) and examining more than 58 million pieces of shared content from approximately 5.3 million users, this study explores how false narratives about autism are promoted, including unfounded claims about its causes and promises of miraculous cures. The adopted methodology combines network analysis, time series analysis, thematic clustering, and content analysis, enabling the identification of dissemination patterns, key influencers, and interconnections with other conspiracy theories. Among the key findings, Brazilian communities stand out as the leading producers and distributors of these narratives in the region, accounting for 46% of the analyzed content. Additionally, there has been an exponential 15,000% (x151) increase in the volume of autism-related disinformation since the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America and the Caribbean, highlighting the correlation between health crises and the rise of conspiracy beliefs. The research also reveals that false cures, such as chlorine dioxide (CDS), ozone therapy, and extreme diets, are widely promoted within these communities and commercially exploited, often preying on desperate families in exchange for money. By addressing the research question, this study aims to contribute to the understanding of the disinformation ecosystem and proposes critical reflections on how to confront these harmful narratives.

Explore related subjects

cs.SIcs.CY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ergon Cugler de Moraes Silva, Arthur Ataide Ferreira Garcia, Guilherme de Almeida, Julie Ricard. 2025-03-31. Disinformation about autism in Latin America and the Caribbean: Mapping 150 false causes and 150 false cures of ASD in conspiracy theory communities on Telegram. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.01991

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Two Fault Lines: Latent Polarity Geometry in X Community Notes

Community Notes is X's crowdsourced fact-checking system. A note is published beneath the post it corrects only when raters who usually disagree both rate it helpful, a design called bridging. To apply that rule, the system learns who disagrees with whom from the ratings alone, placing every rater and note on one line, the polarity axis. Every scorer in the production pipeline uses a single axis. Refitting the base model these scorers share on the full public data (212.9M ratings, 2.33M notes, 1.07M raters), we find that one axis is too few. The space is at least two-dimensional. The first axis is left/right politics, while the second, which we interpret as trust in institutions, is largely independent of the first. A held-out test confirms that the second axis improves prediction of unseen ratings, while a third adds little. A second rater dimension learned from one set of topics predicts how raters judge COVID and Ukraine notes excluded from the fit, so it does not merely restate subject matter. Among heavily rated notes that barely divide raters politically, the published share falls from 71.5% to 11.7% as second-axis disagreement grows. A one-axis fit records these notes only as weakly polarised and less helpful; the information that raters at one end of the second axis support them is lost. Authors write notes matching their own position on both axes (r = 0.538 and 0.358), and a small minority of raters cast most ratings (Gini = 0.718). Fewer notes are published in the smallest language communities, but the shortfall is in ratings received, not in how the rule treats them. Keeping ratings per note constant, only Hindi stays below the global rate of 10.85%, and Greek moves from 7.76% to 11.68%. We argue for a bridging model with more than one axis of disagreement, and for recruiting raters in the languages the current design reaches least.

cs.SI↗
arXiv2026

Systematic comparison of gender inequality in scientific rankings across disciplines

Participation of Women in academia has grown over recent decades. Yet, it is unclear how this growth translates into representation at the top of academic rankings (measured by scientific productivity and citations). Here, we investigate gender gaps in productivity, citations, and coauthorship networks across 18 fields, using 67.7 million papers published between 1975 and 2020 in the Semantic Scholar Open Research Corpus, with the authors binary gender inferred from names using Genderize and Namsor. We find that women remain consistently underrepresented in top-ranked positions across all fields, even in disciplines where their overall participation is relatively high. We observe that rankings are generally becoming increasingly rigid over time, with fewer researchers entering or leaving top-ranked positions from one year to the next in most fields, although we do not test whether this rigidity contributes to the disparities we document. Across fields, highly productive men receive more citations than the closest available women based on the observed productivity and career stages. However, when top-ranked women are compared with their closest male counterparts in terms of career stage and publication profile (accounting for venue prestige and authorship position), gaps narrow in some fields and in a few others disappear or reverse, showing that, among highly productive researchers, differences in research output alone do not fully account for the citation gaps.

cs.SI↗
arXiv2026

Finding Common Ground: Graded Communal Knowledge in Bluesky Starter Packs

Communication is made possible by common ground---the unspoken knowledge that people share and presuppose of one another, whether that be online or offline. In his conception of common ground, Clark (1996) distinguishes between personal and communal common ground, and asserts that the latter is graded: the more community affiliations two people share, the more common ground they share as well. Social media research has invoked this mechanism to explain how users connect, but it has gone largely untested because community memberships are rarely visible and, where they are, they are coupled to user interactions in a way that leads to conflating effects. To circumvent these challenges, this study repurposes Bluesky starter packs (SPs) as user-curated community affiliation labels. Across 191,648 pairs of users, we show that shared lexical repertoire---our proxy for common ground---grows monotonically with the number of SPs that users share, with users sharing a single pack being roughly twice as similar as equally connected strangers. A semantic renormalization of SP co-membership shows furthermore that it is more so the number of topically \emph{distinct} communities, rather than the raw count, in which common ground is graded. Finally, we show that community co-membership adds to common ground independently of proximity in the Bluesky follow network. These results lead to the conclusion that community membership is a measurable, separable, and semantically structured carrier of common ground. Reading it as such makes common ground observable before an exchange rather than inferred from it, and thus opens the door for large-scale observational approaches to a set of questions that have so far only been posed in the laboratory.

cs.SI↗