Misleading information online is often treated as a technical glitch, something that better algorithms or stricter moderation can fix. But research points to a more complex reality. That is, the rise of “misfluencers”, individuals who shape how information is interpreted, shared and trusted across digital platforms.
Whether acting deliberately or not, they tap into emotion, identity and community to amplify misleading claims in ways that feel credible and relatable. This human layer makes misinformation harder to detect and regulate. It’s a danger when it comes to everyday decisions about important topics like health, finance and technology. Understanding how misfluencers operate is key to navigating an information environment where trust is increasingly contested.
Herkulaas MvE Combrink is a co-director at the Interdisciplinary Centre for Digital Futures, senior lecturer in Economics and Management Sciences at the UFS, and the head of the Knowledge Mapping Lab, a research group to manage infodemics and human language technology innovation.
Phelokazi Mkungeka is an interdisciplinary researcher with a background in sociology, specialising in artificial intelligence and health misinformation in digital environments.
They’ve explored the interplay between AI, misfluencers and health communication.
What exactly is a ‘misfluencer’, and how do they differ from traditional influencers?
A misfluencer is an individual who shapes how information is interpreted, trusted, and acted upon within a network. Misfluencers fuel the spread of misinformation by being perceived as a trustworthy source of information that people within their social network latch onto.
Traditional influencers typically aim to promote products, lifestyles, or ideas with clear intent. Often, these are within commercial or branding frameworks marketing a specific product, for example.
Sources of misinformation, on the other hand, are usually defined by the content itself. They are people who share false or misleading information.
During the COVID-19 health crisis, for example, some people on social media without any scientific or medical training unintentionally endorsed medications that were not approved.
Their relatability also makes their content feel credible, even when it is not accurate.
Misfluencers often speak from a point of perceived authenticity, shared identity, or community belonging, rather than formal expertise. They may have a strong opinion about something that is either sensational or topical at that point in time – a new discovery, a crisis, a political campaign, even a new technology.
Misfluencers amplify misinformed ideas or constructs, which become part of the dialogue within digital domains. It is not always on purpose.
Why are misfluencers so influential?
In an age where online influence shapes reality, the question is no longer what is true, but whether truth can still compete. Complex ideas (like a new vaccine) are full of terminology and concepts that the everyday person may not understand.
Misfluencers often take complex ideas and distil them into an understandable narrative for most people. They are effective because they operate on the level of meaning, not just information. They create a sense of coherence, even when the underlying content is misleading. In many cases, the narrative “feels right” before it is evaluated as true or false. People then tend to latch onto these ideas. Another example is the social media conspiracy theories that emerged during the 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns.
Information shared within networks is more likely to be accepted and repeated, reinforcing its perceived validity.
Do misfluencers act intentionally?
While some individuals may deliberately spread misleading information for ideological, financial or social gain, many others do so unintentionally.
You can think of it as a type of intellectual broken telephone. The way the initial message is comprehended changes over time as it is told and reframed, leaving out key details that distort the intellectual meaning just enough to be misinformed. Algorithmic systems further complicate this. Content that generates engagement is more likely to be promoted by online algorithms, regardless of its accuracy.
This can elevate individuals into influential positions without deliberate intent. Understanding misfluencers therefore requires moving beyond the idea of “bad actors” and recognising the systemic and social processes that enable ordinary users to participate in the spread of misleading information.
What can be done about it?
Addressing misfluencers requires a shift from content control to context awareness. Simply removing or flagging harmful information is often insufficient, as it does not address why the information is persuasive. Individuals should be critical rather than passively consuming “information”.
One idea is to place a Social Stress Indicator and a Credibility score on online conversations, specifically in public chatrooms and social media platforms. A Social Stress Indicator is a type of digital thermometer that can flag conversations once the social stress reaches a certain threshold. Social stress is an indicator that can measure potential statements or conversations that may escalate into online arguments, typically centred around sensitive conversations or around topics that may be considered provocative. These conversations may then in turn trigger negative sentiment, which can then be tracked online.
Another important societal call to action is to improve digital literacy. Digital literacy needs to move beyond fact-checking towards interpretive awareness. In other words, people need to become more critical about the information they consider correct because information is being generated faster than it can be verified. When this happens, we have an infodemic – the perfect environment for misinformation to arise and for misfluencing to happen. Interventions should focus on slowing down the spread of potentially harmful narratives rather than censoring them outright. The reason is that there may be legitimate concerns within conversations that contain misinformation, and it is important to address these concerns, otherwise the misinformation will continue.
For policymakers, the challenge is to find a balance between protecting freedom of expression and ensuring accountability when harmful or misleading information spreads online. This does not necessarily mean stricter censorship. Instead, it can involve practical measures such as requiring greater transparency around sponsored content, supporting independent fact checking, improving digital literacy, and creating clear rules for how social media platforms respond to harmful misinformation.
For example, governments can encourage platforms to label manipulated content, provide context on health claims, or make data available to researchers studying how information spreads. During public health crises, partnerships between universities, health departments and technology companies can also help identify harmful narratives early and improve public communication.
Better tools are needed to measure influence and harm. Policymakers need reliable indicators that can show when online conversations begin to shape risky behaviour, distrust, or confusion at scale. Building these measures will require much more research and collaboration between scientists, public health experts, and technology sectors.
The goal is not to silence people or eliminate misfluencers. It is to create healthier information environments where influence is balanced by trustworthy information, context and accountability. In a world where online voices increasingly shape what people believe, the future may depend not only on who speaks the loudest, but on how society helps people make sense of what they hear.
- The article first appeared in The Conversation.
