Brandolini's law

Brandolini's law (also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle) is an Internet adage coined in 2013 by Italian programmer Alberto Brandolini. It expresses the observation that disproving false or misleading information typically requires significantly more effort than producing it. The adage states:

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.^[1][2]

Origins

The principle was formulated in January 2013 by Alberto Brandolini, who posted it on social media.^[3] Brandolini later explained that he was influenced by reading Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow and by a televised debate between former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and journalist Marco Travaglio.^[4]

Examples

The principle has been cited in connection with persistent health misinformation, social media rumors, and pseudoscientific claims.

One frequently referenced example is the false assertion that vaccines cause autism, originating with the fraudulent 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield. Although the paper was retracted and Wakefield lost his medical license, the claim has continued to circulate, contributing to vaccine hesitancy and requiring extensive efforts to debunk.^[5][6]

After the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013, social media spread a false claim that a Sandy Hook survivor was among the victims. Despite refutations by outlets including Snopes, the story was shared tens of thousands of times and reported by mainstream media.^[6]

Other examples include pseudoscientific products such as Dr. Mehmet Oz’s weight-loss supplements and Joseph Mercola’s tanning beds, which were promoted widely before regulatory action curtailed their sale, and the false media claim of an Icelandic “baby boom” following the national football team’s 2016 victory over England, later disproven by demographic data.^[5][7]

COVID-19 pandemic

Main article: COVID-19 misinformation

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the law was frequently invoked in relation to medical misinformation. Journalist Jeff Yates of Radio-Canada described the resource-intensive process of fact-checking a viral video containing numerous false claims, contrasting the creator’s minimal effort with days of verification work.^[8] Similar dynamics were noted in public debates over hydroxychloroquine, where discredited claims continued to spread despite clinical evidence to the contrary.^[9]

Further applications

Research in social psychology has examined conditions under which individuals are more susceptible to misinformation. A 2020 study found reduced ability to detect false claims when individuals had limited self-regulatory resources.^[10]

Scholars have also applied the principle to the study of scientific credibility, organizational communication, and gendered disinformation campaigns, where false narratives are strategically deployed against women in public life.^[11][12][13]

Mitigation

Scientists and communicators have discussed strategies to address the imbalance described by Brandolini’s law. Phil Williamson of the University of East Anglia argued in 2016 that researchers have a responsibility to correct misinformation in public forums.^[1] Other proposed methods include pre-exposure warnings, repeated corrections, providing alternative explanations, and adhering to principles of accuracy, clarity, and fairness when challenging misinformation.^[14][15]

Similar concepts

The idea aligns with earlier observations about the spread of falsehoods. Jonathan Swift wrote in 1710 that "Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it".^[16][17] In 1845, economist Frédéric Bastiat noted the relative ease of presenting partial truths compared to refuting them in detail.^[18] Comparable formulations appeared in the writings of Italian blogger Uriel Fanelli and researcher Jonathan Koomey.^[19][20]

See also

• Big lie
• Burden of proof
• Hitchens's razor
• List of eponymous laws
• Poe's law