Study reveals how false claims about Swedish child welfare spread on social media
Researchers analyzed a major disinformation campaign accusing Swedish child welfare services of 'kidnapping' migrant children, finding that false narratives gain credibility through emotional storytelling and personal testimony rather than facts. The findings expose how social media platforms become battlegrounds for competing versions of truth, with implications for public trust in government agencies and child protection systems.
Originaltitel: Exploring claims in disinformation – The shared story of ‘the Swedish child welfare services’ kidnapping migrant children’
<p>In the early 2020s, the Swedish child welfare services (CWS) were accused in social media of kidnapping and placing migrant children in foster or family care, without their families’ knowledge or permission. This debate became referred to as a large-scale disinformation campaign, which can be understood as a discursive struggle between different versions of truth. This study explores social media content about the Swedish CWS in Arabic between 2021 and 2023. The material consisted of Facebook and YouTube posts and comments in Arabic. The analysis departed from the narrative genre of shared stories, and focused on claims about the CWS and how such claims are made credible. The findings show three types of claims within the shared story of ‘the CWS kidnapping migrant children’: families are victims of CWS’ malpractice; affected children suffer; and migrant families fear the CWS. These claims are made legitimate and credible by constructing the teller as an expert using time, place, and details while constructing the testimonies to invoke an emotional response. In conclusion, this study highlights how social reality is constructed and negotiated on social media, where migrant families’ testimonies of wrongdoings and fear become intertwined with larger stories of good and bad, truth or falsehood. It is therefore essential that claims made online is treated as signals of perceived vulnerability and institutional distance, rather than as “falsehoods” to be corrected, while CWS’ procedures and legal thresholds are clearly conveyed.</p>