The Rise of Misinformation in the Digital Age: A Content Creator's Perspective

By 2025, social media is an undeniably significant part of the Internet ecosystem, its function as an information source being of particular interest. Having expanded beyond its original purpose for socializing online, social media is increasingly used as a news source; for example, half of American adults reported using it for news up from one-fifth in 2018 (Pew Research Center, as cited in Aïmeur et al, 2023, p.30). Though they foster “decentralized and participatory” sharing of information which contributes to the “diversification of knowledge diffusion process” (Jones-Jang et al, 2021, p.371), social media platforms as a new information tool are plagued by misinformation and disinformation. This “distortion of true information” and “production of false information” permeating social media (Aïmeur et al, 2023, p.30) raises questions about the extent to which policymakers should implement measures to combat these, at the possible expense of free speech on platforms defined by their user-generated structure. Based on an overview of research into the debate, it is evident that users cannot rely on policy alone to protect them from mis/disinformation, though policymakers do owe them this support. Given their active participation in content creation and consumption, social media users must also take an active role in evaluating the reliability of their sources; this role must inform and be supplemented by the platforms’ content moderation policy. 

If social media is going to continue its trajectory as a news and information source, its users need to develop their literacy in a digital context to avoid absorbing mis/disinformation. Looking outside of platforms’ content moderation efforts, crowdsourcing has been posited as a useful means of verifying information, such as through comment sections on posts and the creation of fact-checking websites (Jones-Jang et al, 2021, p.373), but the efforts of a portion of users cannot be relied upon to ensure widespread literacy around digital communication. In their study assessing the correlation between individuals’ literacy levels and their ability to recognize fake news, and comparing the usefulness of media literacy, news literacy, digital literacy and information literacy, Jones-Jang et al. (2021) found that accurate recognition was significantly correlated with information literacy rather than the other forms (p.382). Information literacy is “the intellectual framework for understanding, finding, evaluating, and using information,” and compared with media and news literacy has been developed in a digital environment context (Jones-Jang et al, 2021, p.375). Though media and news literacies are useful for understanding how media is constructed and makes meaning according to commercial and ideological interests, and digital literacy for understanding digital terminology, information literacy equips Internet users with the ability to utilize and adapt to rapidly changing information systems (Jones-Jang et al, 2021, p.382). Unlike other literacies, which may only be theoretically useful for discerning fake news, information literacy is a more actionable set of skills to be taught, and should be prioritized in educational programs. 

The necessity for individuals to become more self-sufficient in evaluating information online, and paired with the general interest in preventing authoritarianism from policymakers, indicates that policy decisions for content moderation should be heavily informed by social media users’ active role in information sharing. As Kozyreva et al. (2023) explain, policy decision makers must choose between action (removing a post or suspending an account) or inaction when met with mis/disinformation, and in choosing must weigh public wellbeing against freedom of expression (p.2). They identify mis/disinformation as harmful when “it undermines people’s ability to make informed choices and when it leads to adverse consequences,” and treat this as potential justification for removing the content from a platform (p.1). To gain insight into users’ perspectives on the public wellbeing versus freedom of expression debate, they conducted a study that collected Americans subjects’ opinions on whether to take action against social media posts spreading misinformation about various topics (2023, p.1). They found that most respondents chose to remove posts with misinformation, and this choice was most swayed by the topic of the post, the identified severity of its potential harm, and whether it was a repeated offense by the account (p.8). The results indicate that minimizing harm is a highly valued principle across this sample population, but the respondents’ reluctancy to suspend accounts suggests that doing so “requires more care in implementation and a higher standard for proving offense” (p.9). Future studies like this can build greater insight into social media users’ interests regarding how to moderate them, thereby legitimizing policy decisions. Communication between policymakers and the users they have authority over recognizes the necessity of their users, and can result in transparent policy that aligns with user perspectives. 

Included in the responsibility of evaluating information shared online is that of content creators who, depending on the size of their following, have the dual role of user and authority in the digital information-sharing environment. The increasing use of social media for news and information is especially relevant to youth, who are using platforms like Instagram and TikTok more than adults as a “major source of information” (Lissens et al, 2024, pp.1-2). The onslaught of information frequent users are receiving means that they are exposed to more misinformation, and that the overload may make them less able to systematically process all information, making them more susceptible to absorbing misinformation uncritically (Lissens et al, 2024, p.2). While users are more likely to systematically engage with and process information if it pertains to their interests, being less engaged with informational content leads them to rely on heuristic cues (Lissens et al, 2024, p.2). On such cue is the expertise heuristic, wherein content creators may present themselves as experts in the field they make content about, without having to verify their credentials on social media (Lissens et al, 2024, p.8). When studying self-proclaimed health experts and young audiences, Lissens et al. (2024) find that their presumed expertise decreases users’ skepticism and predicts higher estimation of the health value of products they recommend (Lissens et al, 2024, p.8). The harm that can result from attributing proclaimed expertise to products promoted again indicates the need for information literacy training, especially for youths to verify content creators’ credentials, and for platforms to implement measures for combating mis/disinformation and false credentials. Content creators themselves can contribute to promoting information literacy and evaluating information, given that they may have influence over a large audience, by discussing how to develop these skills and carefully verifying their own informational content as correct. Creators with a substantial following can function as mediators between the average user and policymakers, thus they are able to advocate for information literacy education, honesty in content creation, and appropriate policies. 

Because the information-sharing source that social media currently functions as was built largely by individual users creating and sharing the information, users and policymakers should work cooperatively to develop a robust system of evaluating information and removing harmful mis/disinformation. Such a system requires information literacy development within individual users, which should be supported by educational institutions and those with authority in the Internet ecosystem, within the supportive structure imposed by policymakers. An acknowledged symbiotic relationship between users and policymakers, often with major content creators mediating, would create transparent and consistent policy across platforms that respects users’ freedom while protecting their wellbeing. 

Word Count: 1129

References

Jones-Jang, S. M., Mortensen, T., & Liu, J. (2021). Does Media Literacy Help Identification of Fake News? Information Literacy Helps, but Other Literacies Don’t. The American Behavioral Scientist (Beverly Hills), 65(2), 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219869406 

Kozyreva, A., Herzog, S. M., Lewandowsky, S., Hertwig, R., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Leiser, M., & Reifler, J. (2023). Resolving content moderation dilemmas between free speech and harmful misinformation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – PNAS, 120(7), e2210666120–e2210666120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2210666120 

Lissens, M., Harff, D., & Schmuck, D. (2025). Responses to (Un)healthy advice: Processing and acceptance of health content creators’ nutrition misinformation by youth. Appetite, 206, 107812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107812