The Critical Role of Facts in Combating Misinformation

Decades of psychological research reveals a consistent pattern among authoritarian leaders and their supporters: they systematically distort truth. These leaders typically follow a predictable playbook—first attacking truth-tellers and credible institutions, then seizing control of information infrastructure, and finally dismantling scientific programs. Such leaders also actively spread disinformation with dangerous consequences, as evidenced by the “stolen election” conspiracy theory that fueled the violent January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

To manipulate reality effectively, authoritarians cultivate allies who defend their agenda by undermining research on disinformation. Their tactics follow predictable patterns, including claims that misinformation cannot be objectively defined because facts are subjective, that misinformation is merely a distraction from “real” problems, or that combating misinformation represents censorship and bias.

This is precisely why factual accuracy matters now more than ever. When we dismiss misinformation as merely opinion or protected speech, dire consequences often follow. Recently in Texas, an unvaccinated child with no underlying health conditions died from measles—a stark reminder that deadly diseases don’t care about personal opinions, and misinformation about vaccines can have fatal consequences.

Critics of fact-checking systems often accuse them of political bias. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg made headlines in January when he announced the elimination of the platform’s third-party fact-checking program in the U.S., claiming these moderators were “too politically biased.” However, empirical research strongly contradicts this narrative. A 2024 study examining members of Congress found that politicians from both parties are fact-checked at equal rates, with prominence—not partisan affiliation—being the primary predictor of fact-checking attention.

Multiple studies demonstrate that ratings from independent fact-checkers strongly correlate with one another. Moreover, when diverse groups of ordinary citizens rate claims—similar to community notes systems—their assessments highly align with expert fact-checkers. This convergence suggests an objective reality exists: some claims are simply false or misleading, regardless of political perspective.

The perception of bias stems from research showing far-right echo chambers objectively spread more misinformation and are therefore more frequently impacted even under politically neutral platform policies. A recent study involving over 65,000 people across 24 countries concluded that conservatives are more susceptible to misinformation, partly because many are exposed to disinformation from far-right elites.

Community notes initiatives alone have proven insufficient to reduce the spread of misinformation on social media. These systems fail because bad actors prioritize amplifying their ideology over promoting truth. Consequently, multiple independent accountability mechanisms for social media companies are necessary.

Another common objection to treating misinformation as an objective problem is that scientific uncertainty makes it impossible to determine what is likely true or false. This “weaponization of uncertainty” represents a classic disinformation technique perfected by the tobacco industry and later adopted by fossil fuel companies. By persistently casting doubt on scientific consensus, these industries discovered they could reduce public support for action. The tobacco industry was ultimately found guilty of deliberately misleading the public about smoking’s health consequences for over 50 years.

Some conservative commentators demonstrate inconsistent attitudes toward facts. Figures like Jordan Peterson criticize postmodernism for depicting facts as subjective, yet simultaneously claim that defining misinformation is entirely subjective. Peterson has described misinformation as a “Soviet era” term meaning “opinions that run contrary to mine,” while Elon Musk has similarly stated that “one person’s misinformation is another person’s information.” Research, however, strongly refutes the notion that misinformation is merely subjective.

Misinformation can be identified through specific markers of falsehood and manipulation. Highly negative emotional language is a common indicator because misinformation often exploits outrage. Even without subject-matter expertise, centuries-old manipulation techniques—presenting opinion as fact, scapegoating, omitting crucial context, impersonating experts, using logical fallacies, and promoting conspiracy theories—help identify potential falsehoods. The presence of multiple such cues leads to over 80% accuracy in classifying misinformation across various datasets.

Why would anyone argue that misinformation cannot be objectively defined? One reason: if a concept cannot be defined, its consequences cannot be addressed. Some attempt to minimize the misinformation problem by suggesting other issues—distrust, polarization, economic inequality—are the “real” problems, positioning misinformation as merely a symptom rather than a cause.

This perspective misunderstands how social forces interact. Misinformation has both direct and indirect societal consequences. It can literally kill people, as when patients refuse life-saving treatments due to anti-vaccination conspiracy theories. Economists have isolated the causal impact of misinformation broadcasts on genocide death rates. False rumors on social media have triggered mob lynchings in India and riots in the UK.

In other instances, misinformation’s impact is more subtle, gradually eroding trust in electoral processes, media, and institutions. A vicious cycle emerges where misinformation breeds distrust, which in turn leads people to seek out, believe, and share more misinformation.

Fortunately, evidence-based solutions to misinformation exist that don’t involve censorship. The “censorship industrial complex” narrative is largely fictional. Interventions like “psychological inoculation” or “prebunking” have proven effective in empowering audiences worldwide to identify manipulation. This approach uses a vaccine analogy—exposing people to weakened forms of manipulation techniques and refuting them in advance helps build cognitive immunity to future misinformation.

Empowering people to recognize manipulation is the opposite of censorship. It’s about enabling more informed speech, not restricting it. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously stated: “If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”