Tobia Spampatti, PhD
LightNews LightNews
banner
tspampatti.bsky.social
Tobia Spampatti, PhD
@tspampatti.bsky.social
6K followers 810 following 200 posts
PhD in Neuroscience, Guest Researcher at the Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development

I study why people care and discuss about societal, systemic issues like climate change, technology, and disinformation.

❤️=bookmarks
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
katestarbird.bsky.social
The UW Center for an Informed Public is looking for postdocs (for 2026-2028) from across diverse disciplines whose research sheds light on the challenges of our modern information environment, promotes civic health, and/or helps people/communities navigate online spaces: apply.interfolio.com/177901
Apply - Interfolio {{$ctrl.$state.data.pageTitle}} - Apply - Interfolio
apply.interfolio.com
November 24, 2025 at 6:26 PM
tspampatti.bsky.social
What Amy says - people, we cannot post our way out of climate change
amywestervelt.bsky.social Amy Westervelt @amywestervelt.bsky.social · 4d
Hi, hello, regarding latest #COP30 text you cannot talk about "information integrity" on climate out one side of your mouth while the other is busy removing "fossil fuel phaseout" & adding "overshoot". anyone who gives a shit about information integrity should be saying so, loudly and clearly.
November 21, 2025 at 7:52 PM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
doctorvive.bsky.social
As I argue in The Language of Climate Politics: we are stuck not because climate politics are polarized, but because they’re UNIFIED (across the right and center-left) on the lie that we can keep using oil and gas but still deal with climate change anyway.

Here’s a good example of that discourse.
politico.eu POLITICO Europe @politico.eu · 4d
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said today that the fight against climate change was not against the fuels that cause it — only the pollution they emit.
Von der Leyen says EU is not fighting fossil fuels, only emissions
The comment could undermine European countries’ push at COP30 to move away from coal, oil and gas.
www.politico.eu
November 21, 2025 at 7:24 PM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
amywestervelt.bsky.social
Hi, hello, regarding latest #COP30 text you cannot talk about "information integrity" on climate out one side of your mouth while the other is busy removing "fossil fuel phaseout" & adding "overshoot". anyone who gives a shit about information integrity should be saying so, loudly and clearly.
November 21, 2025 at 6:57 PM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
commscholar.bsky.social
🎉 Excited to share that Content Confusion publishes today! It dives into how news orgs & advertisers—including fossil fuels—blur journalism & ads, fueling disinfo & distrust. Available now! Use code MITP30 today for 30% off at MIT Press. Thanks for the support! 🙏
mitpress.mit.edu/978026255360...
Content Confusion
We often blame social media for the rampant problem of disinformation, but mainstream news media is also at fault. Not only do news outlets disguise paid con...
mitpress.mit.edu
November 18, 2025 at 12:51 PM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
fdabl.bsky.social
🚨Techno-optimistic scientists take fewer climate actions

In a new preprint, @colognaviktoria.bsky.social, @maiensachis.bsky.social, @jmbh.bsky.social & I examine techno-optimism among 9,199 scientists and how it relates to their civic engagement and lifestyle choices🧵

🔗 Link: tinyurl.com/hh94huzv
Title page of the paper "Techno-optimistic scientists take fewer climate action"
November 14, 2025 at 9:20 AM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
brendannyhan.bsky.social
A staggering statistic: "North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year." What are we doing?
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 14d
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 12, 2025 at 1:58 PM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
donmoyn.bsky.social
Three German universities offering post-docs for researchers "who cannot conduct or continue their work in the USA appropriately because of actual political pressure. "
www.uni-konstanz.de/zukunftskoll...
Early Career Rescue Fellowship
www.uni-konstanz.de
November 11, 2025 at 7:10 PM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
justinhendrix.bsky.social
Public health depends on citizens accepting scientifically-grounded guidance. When official institutions produce politically-determined science and independent verification infrastructure is eliminated, the capacity for evidence-based health policy collapses, writes Renée DiResta.
How Political Power is Capturing Knowledge Systems and Manufacturing Structural Ignorance | TechPolicy.Press
We're witnessing the simultaneous capture of knowledge-producing institutions and the elimination of independent verification mechanisms, writes Renée DiResta.
www.techpolicy.press
November 10, 2025 at 4:11 PM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
jasonhickel.bsky.social
Yes, this is correct. And the reason is because our capitalist classes have decided that it is not sufficiently profitable, so they're not going to do it.

We must understand this reality. Capital *cannot* be relied upon to address the climate crisis.
November 10, 2025 at 4:13 PM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
caadcoalition.bsky.social
🚨 Our new report, Deny, Deceive, Delay: Demystified, is out now. 🚨

The report explores how Big Carbon and Big Tech use disinformation to sabotage climate action and why, despite 89% of people worldwide demanding stronger action, progress gets derailed.
buff.ly
November 10, 2025 at 11:30 AM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
saarataavila.bsky.social
My first paper is out at Journal of Environmental Psychology! 🌱

Climate change is complex: there are many variables that are connected via unclear causal relationships. But is awareness of complexity helpful in guiding people towards effective environmental behavior, or can it hinder action? (1/5)
November 7, 2025 at 3:21 PM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
doctorvive.bsky.social
The claim that “emissions have come down” in this @nytimes.com @sominisengupta.bsky.social article on where we are ten years post-Paris is FALSE.

Global emissions were at an all-time high in 2024.

As it stands this claim is misinformation. They need to issue a correction!
Text from a NYT article: Emissions have come down, but there's still far to go. Call this good-ish news. Lower emissions mean the arc of temperature increase has curved downward over the past 10 years. If countries stick to current policies, the global average temperature is projected to rise by 2.5 to 2.9 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
November 7, 2025 at 11:17 AM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
coveringclimatenow.org
Watch the video here if you missed the livestream. coveringclimatenow.org/event/the-bi...
The Bill Gates Memo: Climate Scientists Respond with Urgency
Hear from Kim Cobb, Zeke Hausfather, Katharine Hayhoe and Daniel Swain.
coveringclimatenow.org
November 6, 2025 at 4:43 PM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
jayvanbavel.bsky.social
For each additional moral–emotional word in a social media post, the number of shares increases 13%

Our new meta-analysis finds robust evidence of moral contagion (N=4,821,006)

The moral contagion effect is even stronger in larger, pre-registered studies (17%).
academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/ar...
November 5, 2025 at 4:58 PM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
lfoswaldo.bsky.social
We have a new preprint: osf.io/preprints/so...

What have we learned about social media - the constantly moving target of empirical research - over the past decade?
October 30, 2025 at 10:53 AM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
commscholar.bsky.social
📢 Excited to share that my 🌟first book talk🌟 will be with @osome.iu.edu! Join me Nov 19, 12-1 pm ET (online) as I discuss key themes from #ContentConfusion (@mitpress.bsky.social). Don’t miss this opportunity to dive deep into the challenges impacting our news media today.
October 29, 2025 at 4:57 PM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
zah-rahmani.bsky.social
I revamped a figure from our paper showing our results in a nutshell: Even during the short experimental time, in the U.S., we find climate concern in the sample diverges between participants with different information diets. 3/4
October 29, 2025 at 4:28 PM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
zah-rahmani.bsky.social
In our recent paper, we use a sampling paradigm to investigate how people consume Pro-climate information and Anti-climate disinformation. In representative samples from three nations, we find belief-confirming sampling and processing and that the messages influenced climate concern. 2/4
October 29, 2025 at 4:28 PM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
zah-rahmani.bsky.social
The relationship between the climate change narratives a person holds and which type of climate messages this person consumes and trusts is a two-way street. 1/4 bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
October 29, 2025 at 4:28 PM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
ntd.bsky.social
Perceptions of ideology are endogenous to the coverage that precedes their formulation you absolute idiots.
October 24, 2025 at 5:32 PM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
jbakcoleman.bsky.social
Selective Causal Focus: Research produced and funded by tech companies often either frames problems as user-driven, or solutions as the obligation of users (E.g. community notes). Distracting us from their design, business model, interface, and other causes steering us away from their profit model
October 24, 2025 at 12:12 AM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
jbakcoleman.bsky.social
I'm excited to finally have a preprint of this paper up, a few years in the making.

In it we argue that industry-driven manipulation of social media research is well underway and that norms and institutions in the field are ill-prepared to resist tech's influence.

arxiv.org/abs/2510.19894
October 24, 2025 at 12:12 AM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
caadcoalition.bsky.social
🗓️ Join CAAD for a Pre-COP30 Disinformation Roundtable on Thursday October 30th, at 11am ET.

We'll dig into the latest climate misinformation trends with a panel of experts and discuss how to counter false narratives ahead of COP30.

Register here buff.ly/A1Da6WM
October 24, 2025 at 12:27 PM
Reposted by Tobia Spampatti, PhD
buziashvili.bsky.social
Years ago, I came across a simple post that has stayed with me ever since. Its message was this: There’s a cost to silence and a cost to speaking up. Every day I wake up and decide which bill I’m going to pay.

Bill me for speaking up and standing up. Every day.
11/11
October 24, 2025 at 2:32 PM