Listen to the article
In the battle against online falsehoods, factchecking may not be the silver bullet many believe it to be, according to emerging research on how misinformation spreads and persists in digital environments.
While reaching for statistics and trusted sources seems like a logical response when encountering dubious claims, evidence suggests this approach often fails to achieve its intended purpose. Studies have found that readers actually trust journalists less when they debunk rather than confirm claims, creating an unexpected credibility paradox.
Perhaps more concerning, factchecking can inadvertently amplify the very falsehoods it aims to correct by repeating them to new audiences who might not have encountered them otherwise.
Media scholar Alice Marwick’s research provides valuable insight into why factchecking alone often falls short. Her work reveals that misinformation isn’t merely a content problem but operates through three interconnected pillars: the message itself, the personal context of those sharing it, and the technological infrastructure amplifying it.
On a cognitive level, humans find it easier to accept information than to reject it, creating fertile ground for misleading content. But misinformation only becomes truly problematic when it finds receptive audiences willing to believe and share it.
The most influential false narratives tap into what sociologist Arlie Hochschild calls “deep stories” – emotionally resonant narratives that align with people’s existing political beliefs and identities. Complex issues get reduced to familiar emotional frameworks that feel intuitively true, regardless of factual accuracy.
“Disinformation about migration might use tropes of ‘the dangerous outsider,’ ‘the overwhelmed state,’ or ‘the undeserving newcomer,'” exemplifying how these emotional shortcuts work across politically charged topics.
The personal context of information consumers plays a crucial role in why factchecking often fails. When fabricated claims align with a person’s existing beliefs, values, and ideologies, they can quickly solidify into a form of personal “knowledge” that becomes resistant to correction.
Marwick’s research on the 2016 U.S. presidential election documented how one woman continued sharing false stories about Hillary Clinton despite her daughter’s repeated debunking efforts. Eventually, the mother admitted, “I don’t care if it’s false, I care that I hate Hillary Clinton, and I want everyone to know that!”
This revealing statement underscores how sharing misinformation often functions as identity signaling rather than information sharing. People distribute false claims to demonstrate group allegiance – a phenomenon researchers term “identity-based motivation.” The value lies not in accuracy but in reinforcing social bonds and tribal affiliations.
The proliferation of AI-generated images will likely accelerate this trend. Research indicates people willingly share images they know are fabricated when they believe these visuals capture an “emotional truth.” Visual content carries inherent credibility and emotional impact that can override critical thinking.
Underpinning both content and personal factors is the technical architecture of social media platforms designed to maximize engagement. These systems generate revenue by capturing and selling users’ attention to advertisers, making user engagement their primary goal.
Platform algorithms optimize for metrics like time spent, likes, shares, and comments – all central to their business model. Research consistently shows that emotionally provocative content, especially material evoking anger, fear, or outrage, generates substantially more engagement than neutral or positive information.
The sharing functionality of messaging and social platforms creates exponential spread potential. A BBC report from 2020 found that a single message sent to a WhatsApp group of 20 people could ultimately reach over three million individuals if each recipient shared it with 20 others and the process repeated five times.
By prioritizing shareable content and making sharing frictionless, these platforms function as accelerants for misinformation, enabling falsehoods to spread faster and more persistently than would be possible in offline environments.
Factchecking fails not because it’s fundamentally flawed but because it addresses only surface-level symptoms rather than the structural causes of misinformation. Meaningful solutions must target all three pillars: content, context, and infrastructure.
This requires long-term changes to platform incentives and publisher accountability, alongside shifts in social norms and greater self-awareness about why we share information. As long as we frame misinformation solely as a contest between truth and falsehood, we’ll continue struggling to contain it.
The persistence of disinformation stems not just from the falsehoods themselves but from the social and structural conditions that make them meaningful and rewarding to share.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
The complexities outlined here emphasize why simplistic solutions to misinformation are unlikely to succeed. A more nuanced, multifaceted approach that accounts for psychology, social dynamics, and technology is clearly needed. This is a challenge that will require ongoing research and innovation.
This is a sobering reminder that the battle against misinformation is far from simple. Factchecking alone is clearly not enough, and in some cases can even backfire. Developing a better understanding of the complex dynamics at play is crucial.
The findings around factchecking actually reducing trust in journalists are really concerning. It speaks to how entrenched some misinformation can be, and the challenges in effectively countering it. More research is clearly needed in this space.
Absolutely. Simply providing accurate information isn’t enough if it ends up undermining the credibility of the sources trying to correct the record. Innovative approaches that account for human biases and the spread of misinformation online will be crucial.
It’s interesting how misinformation operates through multiple interconnected factors – the content itself, the personal contexts of those sharing it, and the technological amplification. Tackling this issue will require a multi-pronged strategy that addresses all those elements.
Agreed. A holistic, systemic approach is needed rather than just focusing on the surface-level content. Addressing the deeper psychological, social, and technological drivers of misinformation is key to developing more effective solutions.
The findings on how misinformation exploits human cognitive biases to persist, even in the face of corrections, are really insightful. It highlights just how difficult this challenge is and the need for innovative, multidisciplinary approaches.
This is a timely and important article on a critical issue. The insights around the limitations of factchecking and the deeper systemic factors driving misinformation are valuable. Addressing this problem will require sustained, concerted effort on multiple fronts.
This is a fascinating look at the complexities of combating misinformation. Factchecking alone seems insufficient – the underlying psychological, social, and technological factors also need to be addressed. It’s an area that requires nuanced, multifaceted solutions.