A misfluencer is an individual who shapes how information is interpreted, trusted, and acted upon within a network. Catherine McQueen/Getty Images 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
