How rumors spread
on misinformation and collective sensemaking
Every day, we are confronted with more information than we could ever reasonably process. Breaking news alerts, viral videos, social media posts shared by friends, influencers, politicians, and strangers. We scroll through competing claims about everything ranging from elections to natural disasters, and increasingly, content generated by artificial intelligence.
Through all of this, our responsibility to decide what is real and filter out what is “fake” / exaggerated / untrue (or perhaps an ounce of truth coated in falsities) becomes increasingly unmanageable.
In this episode of Art of Citizenry, I sit down with Dr. Kate Starbird, professor at the University of Washington and co-founder of the UW Center for an Informed Public to discuss rumors, misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, AI-generated content, and the fragile state of trust in our communication ecosystem.
Misinformation is not only a problem of falsehoods, it’s also a problem of uncertainty. Rumors spread because it is human nature to try to make sense when things are not clear. And social media platforms have transformed that deeply human process into something more dangerous, more fragmented, and easier to manipulate. So, what happens when our collective sensemaking takes place inside systems that profit from controlling our attention by keeping us emotionally activated?
And I suppose, more critically, this episode encourages us to consider: can a democratic society govern itself if people no longer believe they know what is happening?
These are some of the questions Dr. Starbird and I unpack. Her research asks us to move beyond the idea that misinformation is simply a collection of incorrect posts floating around the internet. It is a social process by which we collectively interpret, frame, amplify, contest, and transform the information we consume.
Meet Our Guest
Dr. Kate Starbird is a Professor in the Department of Human Centered Design & Engineering (HCDE) at the University of Washington and co-founder of the UW Center for an Informed Public. Her research sits within the fields of human-computer interaction and crisis informatics — or the study of how social media and other digital technologies are used during crisis events. Currently, she focuses on the spread of online rumors, misinformation, and disinformation during crises, elections, and breaking news events. In particular, she investigates the *participatory* nature of rumors and online disinformation campaigns, exploring both top-down and bottom-up dynamics.
“The logic of these platforms is reconfiguring how information flows, reconfiguring politics, and reconfiguring values, in part because of the ways they amplify certain kinds of content. And that content is not necessarily aligned with making a shared sense of reality that helps us solve actual problems.” — Dr. Kate Starbird
How Misinformation Spreads
Here are some key takeaways from this conversation that I hope you hold onto:
Rumors are not always malicious. They are often part of how humans make sense of uncertainty, especially during crises, elections, disasters, and breaking news events.
Disinformation is rarely just a single false post. It often works as a campaign, layering truth, plausibility, exaggeration, and distortion to produce a misleading sense of reality.
Most people who spread disinformation are not intentionally lying. Many are sincere believers who share content because it confirms their worldview, identity, or sense of what is happening.
Platforms are not neutral spaces. Their algorithms, incentives, and attention dynamics shape which rumors travel, which narratives gain power, and which communities become vulnerable to manipulation.
AI raises the stakes. As synthetic images and videos become more convincing, society will need new ways to evaluate trust, authenticity, and evidence.
The answer is not silence. Responsible participation means understanding how these systems work, recognizing our own role within them, and choosing to share information in ways that align with our values.
Rumors Are a Human Response to Uncertainty
The word rumor often sounds inherently malicious. We imagine someone knowingly inventing a lie and passing it along, but rumors are not always created to deceive. They can serve an informational purpose by attempting to explain what happened. They can serve an emotional purpose by giving people something concrete to hold onto. They can also serve a social purpose by creating communities around a shared interpretation of reality.
This is part of why rumors can become so powerful. They are rarely just isolated claims. They are stories people build together. And once a story aligns with someone’s identity, worldview, political commitments, or existing suspicions, correcting a single factual detail may not be enough to dismantle it.Why do rumors spread during crises?
Rumors spread during crises because people are trying to resolve uncertainty. Early information is often incomplete, raw, or changing, which creates space for speculation. Rumors can serve emotional, social, and informational purposes, even when they later turn out to be false.
What is the difference between misinformation and disinformation?
Misinformation generally refers to false or misleading information that may be shared without intent to deceive. Disinformation involves intentional efforts to mislead, often for political, financial, or social gain. In practice, the two can blur because intentional disinformation campaigns are often spread by people who genuinely believe the claims.
“We’ve all been unwitting but willing spreaders of disinformation. It’s part of what it means to be online at this point.” — Dr. Kate Starbird
That is uncomfortable to admit. It is much easier to imagine misinformation as something that happens to other people. People who are less educated, less discerning, more ideological, or somehow uniquely gullible. BUT we are all vulnerable to information that validates something we already believe, particularly when it produces a strong emotional response.
Platforms Are Not Neutral Containers
We often talk about social media platforms as though they are empty spaces where human behavior simply unfolds. Spoiler alert: fake news! They aren’t.
Platforms determine how information is organized, recommended, amplified, monetized, and buried. Their design choices influence which stories we are fed. Every interaction, or even pause, indicates what catches our attention. And so, the algorithm does what it has been trained to: track us, and in that way, manipulate our understanding of reality. An algorithm does not need to believe a conspiracy theory to help spread it, it only needs to recognize that people are engaging with it (likes, shares, comments, saves…each action indicates that this story gets bites!).
This isn’t new news. I know. If you have been on social media for some time, you know that content that produces outrage, fear, suspicion, or moral certainty can keep people’s attention (commenting, arguing, and returning). These incentives do not necessarily prioritize the information that helps communities understand reality or solve collective problems. Instead, they prioritize attention. Platforms influence which narratives become familiar, whose voices are treated as credible, and whether people come to see one another as fellow participants in a shared society or as enemies living in entirely separate realities.
What is collective sensemaking?
Collective sensemaking is the process by which people come together to interpret uncertain, confusing, or disruptive events. During crises, elections, disasters, and breaking news moments, people look for answers, share information, and build narratives to explain what is happening.
How do influencers shape misinformation?
Influencers often act as lead sensemakers for their communities. They do not just amplify information. They frame events, package uncertainty into stories, and help audiences interpret what matters. This can make them powerful drivers of rumor spread, especially in political contexts.
How does AI affect misinformation?
AI makes it easier to generate convincing text, images, audio, and video at scale. This creates new challenges for trust because people may no longer be able to rely on visual evidence in the same way. The result may be greater uncertainty about what is real and who can be trusted.
“You can’t really have a democratic society where people are able to make decisions about self-governance when people don’t think they know what’s going on.” — Dr. Kate Starbird
Thought Exercise on the Content We Engage With Online
This episode asks not only how misinformation spreads, but what kind of information ecosystem democracy requires. Rumors are deeply human. The challenge is that our sensemaking now runs through systems designed to reward speed, outrage, and attention. The work ahead is not to retreat from public life, but to participate more conscientiously in it.
“I want the next generation of media literacy to focus on empowering people to share, build their own communities, and find their voices.” — Dr. Kate Starbird
Trace a Rumor Through Your Feed
After listening to this episode, think about a claim, story, video, or headline you recently saw online that made you immediately feel something: outrage, fear, validation, suspicion, grief, or certainty. Before asking whether it was true or false, pause and ask a different set of questions.
Where did you first see it?
Was it shared by a journalist, a friend, an influencer, a political figure, an anonymous account, or an algorithmically recommended post?
What emotion did it trigger in you?
Did it confirm something you already believed?
Did it make you want to share it before you had time to verify it?
Now trace the story backward. Who seemed to be framing the event? Who was amplifying it? Who benefited from the version of reality being presented? What information was missing, simplified, exaggerated, or treated as suspicious?
Then trace the story forward. What might happen if people believe it? Could it shape how they vote, whom they trust, whether they feel safe, or how they understand a crisis? Could it deepen cynicism, reinforce a conspiracy theory, or make people believe that no reliable information is possible at all?
This exercise is not about shaming yourself for being vulnerable to misinformation. We are all vulnerable. Rumors spread because we are doing the most human thing: trying to make sense of things. We look for patterns, we search for meaning, and we rely on the people and communities around us to help us understand what is happening. That’s so incredibly human!
Support the Podcast
Art of Citizenry is 100% listener-supported. Every contribution helps us continue producing research-intensive episodes and paying our small but mighty team. If this episode resonates with you, consider supporting our work:
✍🏽 Upgrade your account to paid on Substack!
💸 Make a one-time contribution here: visit.artofcitizenry.com/paypal
Hi there! If you are still reading and found your way here: (a) you rock! (b) welcome! I’m Manpreet – I write, research, report, record, think way too much about law and policy, and generally find myself in multiple rabbit holes at one time for a living.
Art of Citizenry is 100% independent, which means no ads, no corporate money (not even non-profits), and no investors dictating what I can or can’t talk about. I frankly do not care to be controlled/censored by people with deep pockets. If this work resonates with you and you have the means to support it, a paid subscription is the single best way to keep it going. Thank you so much for being here!