How Social Media Transformed News and Fueled the Rise of Misinformation

The phrase “fake news,” Collins Dictionary’s word of the year for 2017, has become a problematic term that fails to capture the complexity of misinformation in today’s digital landscape. Far from being merely a descriptor, the term is increasingly wielded as a weapon by politicians worldwide to undermine journalism and justify censorship of free speech.

The inadequacy of “fake news” as terminology becomes evident when examining the various motivations behind the creation of misleading content. These motivations fall into four distinct categories: political gain, financial profit, psychological satisfaction, and social reinforcement of community belonging. Each requires its own tailored response, with the social element demanding particular attention in our interconnected world.

Modern social media platforms have transformed our lives into public performances, a concept American sociologist Erving Goffman presciently described in his 1956 work “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.” Today, maintaining privacy has become nearly impossible, not just in terms of personal data protection from corporations and governments, but also in keeping our daily activities, interests, and information consumption habits hidden from public view.

The design of social networks inherently encourages constant mutual assessment. Our digital identities are fragmented across multiple platforms, and our decisions—which are increasingly public performances—are driven by a desire to impress both real and imagined audiences. While many have reluctantly accepted this reality for shopping, travel, dining, and dating, the same dynamic has now engulfed news consumption.

Before the advent of “social” media, our reading and viewing habits remained largely private, known only to close friends and family. Today, what we “like” and follow on platforms like Twitter and Facebook is visible to many—sometimes everyone. News consumption has transformed into a performance that signifies our identity, social status, and political leanings rather than simply reflecting a quest for information or entertainment.

When analyzing why people share misleading or fabricated content, we must recognize that the act of sharing serves important social functions beyond truth-seeking. Sharing content signals agreement with a message’s sentiment or acknowledges its perceived importance. These small performances help fulfill our fundamental desire for connection with others.

Media scholar James Carey offers valuable insight here. He argued that we typically view communication through a “transmission model” focused on how messages move from sender to receiver. However, Carey suggested we should instead view communication as ritual. From this perspective, “News is not information, it is drama,” and reading news becomes less about gathering information and more like “attending a mass” where a particular worldview is portrayed and reinforced.

Current proposed solutions to misinformation—like flagging disputed content—tend to focus on this transmission model, assuming rational information consumption. But this approach fails to address the emotional and social drivers that shape our relationship with information. The algorithms powering social networks are specifically designed to capitalize on emotional responses, creating a fundamental disconnect with solutions that require rational engagement.

The social architecture of digital platforms presents additional challenges. How can we truly diversify our information intake by following accounts across the political spectrum when such actions are public? Do we need to explain to our networks why we’re following a hypertisan Facebook page with opposing views? Even a simple “like” to bookmark content for later research becomes problematic when that action is visible to others in your network.

As French philosopher Guy Debord might observe, we’ve evolved from being informed to having information and now to merely appearing informed. While platform architecture isn’t the root cause of misinformation creation, it significantly contributes to its dissemination. When algorithms exploit emotional responses but proposed solutions require rational ones, meaningful change becomes unlikely.

Until we acknowledge and address these emotional and social dimensions of information sharing, efforts to combat misinformation will continue to fall short.