In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the globe, and simultaneously, the World Health Organization declared we had entered a concurrent information disaster—a pandemic of misinformation. During this global crisis, false and inaccurate information spread rapidly across digital platforms like a virus. Uncertain information causes anxiety; it has the potential to lead the public astray amidst a complex maze of falsehoods, a misdirection that poses harm not only to themselves but also to others.

In the face of a flood of misinformation, numerous institutions are investing substantial resources to quantify its spread and impact online. The production of related reports has prompted the introduction of legislation aimed at limiting the spread of fake news online. However, not all scholars agree that misinformation can have such a significant impact, and some psychologists and sociologists question whether misinformation is indeed an entirely new issue. They point out that society might be overly caught up in what they call a moral panic over misinformation. Christos Lynteris, a causal researcher at King's College London, points out that we need to analyze the current situation more carefully before succumbing to widespread panic.

The challenge of studying misinformation is partly due to its ambiguous definition. Even within the scientific community, there is a lack of consensus on what constitutes misinformation. Magda Osman, a cognitive psychologist at Cambridge University, explains that it is a very vague concept. Generally, misinformation is seen as factually inaccurate information that leads to unintended misleading; sometimes, it is simply the result of carelessness. However, it is often confused with concepts such as disinformation and propaganda, which respectively refer to the deliberate spread of falsehoods and politically biased information.

Even under a universally accepted definition, countless facts could be considered misinformation. Take weather forecasts as an example; if a forecast claims that the temperature will reach 55°F and it rises to 57°F, does that count as misinformation? Or if a news report does not accurately describe the color of someone's shirt, is that wrong? More complex is the situation during the pandemic, where once widely accepted scientific hypotheses were later updated—do these count as misinformation? This shows the dilemma for researchers in defining misinformation is a difficult task. It is not just because of the potential for misunderstanding but also because it risks conflating relatively harmless inexactitudes with more dangerous conspiracy theories.

It is worth noting that, regardless of the definition, misinformation is not a new phenomenon. Since the advent of language, we have lived in a world full of lies, wild tales, myths, pseudoscience, and inaccurate or half-true information. For example, the medieval fables of Europe are filled with various magical animal characters.

The existence of anti-vaccine groups spans more than two centuries, with a history that even predates the internet. During the early 20th century's so-called "yellow journalism" era, newspaper reporters frequently concocted sensational stories to attract readers and increase circulation. Yellow journalism refers to the technique of capturing public attention by using exaggerated headlines and news content.

"People often say we now live in a post-truth era, but such a statement seems to imply we once had an 'era of truth,'" says Katarina Dutilh Novaes, an expert in logic, history, and philosophy at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. However, since the age of yellow journalism, standards in journalism and publishing have significantly improved. But everyday conversations usually do not adopt these rigorous standards, and it is unlikely that we would consult reference books to verify the accuracy of what is discussed at family gatherings.

Today, many interpersonal interactions have moved online, but within any given internet space, it is almost impossible to simply quantify the amount of misinformation. As some critics point out, "everything we express has the possibility of being imprecise." Moreover, proving that misinformation directly affects individual behavior is an even greater challenge. Often, when we analyze misinformation and try to determine who is more susceptible to it, it is based on the assumption that the spread of misinformation changes people's beliefs, leading to irrational behavior.

The misinformation about vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic is a prime example, as many people's hesitancy and doubt about vaccines are considered to be the direct consequence of misinformation. Although numerous studies have revealed the link between misinformation and vaccine hesitancy, proving causality between them remains a challenge. Some research shows that those hesitant to vaccinate before the pandemic were already skeptical of science; misinformation might merely support their existing bias, which does not mean it caused their distrust.

Other studies suggest that factors like in-group solidarity and national identity are more powerful predictors of whether someone will vaccinate against COVID-19. Recent studies even suggest that exposure to misinformation about COVID-19 has little to no effect on people's decision to vaccinate, and in some cases, it slightly increased their willingness to do so.

Attempts to identify specific groups most susceptible to misinformation – whether the elderly, the youth, those in poor economic conditions, or those with lower educational levels – are often seen as condescending. In reality, all of us can accept and believe in untrue information, depending solely on the way it is presented.

This collective hysteria about misinformation, according to Osman, can be likened to the panic over video games causing violence among adolescents in recent decades. Though numerous headlines and politicians claimed games like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty increased aggressiveness among the youth, no studies have definitively proven this link. He believes that our concerns about misinformation to some extent reflect a moral panic about the internet as a new medium for information dissemination, and when we look back at history, we find that people have always shown this kind of concern and opposition for each new form of communication technology that emerges.

In history, the rise of new technologies has always been accompanied by public concerns and resistance. For example, in the mid-15th century, Gutenberg's printing technology sparked a rebellion that led to the destruction of several printing workshops. Similarly, in the 1930s, with the proliferation of radio, some American parents began to worry that this new invention might have a negative impact on their children.

Even the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates had his doubts about writing. He believed that written words might not replace live conversation. Socrates' skepticism also reflected the general concern about new technology in society at the time.

To some extent, these early worries were not without reason. It is a wise choice to adopt a cautious attitude until we can fully understand how a new technology will change our way of life. However, compared to the past, the speed of technological development in modern society has greatly accelerated, leaving us almost no time to adapt to each new technology that appears. Especially in the past thirty years, the progress of information sharing technology has been dazzling, ranging from mobile phones, emails to social media. The emergence of smartphones has pushed this progress to its peak, and we can now access all information in the world with just a small device.

Although the development of information sharing technology has brought surprises to people, it has also triggered a series of panics. The early optimism about the Internet has gradually been replaced by reality. We once hoped that freer access to information would lead to increased transparency and reduced misunderstandings, but in fact, even in the golden age of information, humans still inevitably make mistakes in many affairs.

This is not to say that the spread of misinformation online is acceptable, nor does it mean that we should not take measures to regulate it. For the regulation of misinformation on the internet, we need to precisely identify the real problems, which may involve the establishment of new legislation or letting tech giants self-regulate.

Fortunately, fake news, erroneous beliefs, and moral panics are not new phenomena. Society has faced these issues for thousands of years, continuously accumulating experience in dealing with them. In the struggle against misinformation, we have reason to believe that human society can effectively respond to these challenges.