The spread of lies is remarkably similar to that of viruses. MIT researchers showed that lies spread much more quickly, deeply, and widely on Twitter than truth—not just a little bit more. The disclosure significantly changed the way that journalists and decision-makers currently perceive online speech: social platform architecture encourages lies rather than facts. Political realities can be changed quickly when fabricated reports have a 70% higher chance of being retweeted than authentic ones.
Though at a slower rate, history provides reminders of this phenomenon. For decades, the notorious “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a fake document that claimed a Jewish conspiracy to gain power, tainted political discussions and fostered divisive ideologies. Despite being intended as entertainment, Orson Welles’ 1938 radio broadcast about an alien invasion terrified listeners who took it for fact. However, the speed at which today’s viral hoaxes spread—something that used to take months to deceive—makes them especially dangerous.
Key Elements of Viral Hoaxes and Political Impact
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Core Phenomenon | Viral hoaxes spread faster than verified truths, reshaping political narratives almost instantly |
| Main Drivers | Emotional triggers, novelty appeal, algorithmic boosts, and cognitive bias |
| High-Profile Cases | COVID-19 conspiracies, election fraud myths, Brexit misinformation, wildfire hoax maps |
| Political Effect | Fuels polarization, shifts voter behavior, legitimizes fringe movements, weakens trust |
| Psychological Impact | Surprise, disgust, emotional arousal, and novelty-seeking drive mass sharing |
| Technological Role | AI deepfakes, doctored visuals, manipulated memes, automated amplification |
| Cultural Parallels | Echoes historic propaganda, from Roman smear campaigns to Cold War disinformation |
| Current Research | MIT study: false news is 70% more likely to be retweeted than true stories |
| Social Consequences | Creates fractured realities, erodes democratic resilience, normalizes cynicism |
Conspiracy theories were very popular online during the pandemic. Because of the unusually high levels of fear and uncertainty, claims that COVID-19 was created in covert labs or that vaccines contained tracking devices connected to billionaires gained traction. Public figures who perpetuated these myths, sometimes on purpose to gain political advantage and other times negligently without citing reliable sources, significantly increased the impact. Millions had already ingested, disseminated, and acted upon lies by the time corrections surfaced.
Hoaxes have flourished during the election cycle. BuzzFeed revealed in 2016 that fake political stories performed better than journalism from reputable outlets. In a similar vein, false information and inflated claims regarding immigration and EU contributions tainted Brexit. A startling reality is brought to light by these episodes: once a false narrative gains traction, it frequently becomes politically irreversible. In the midst of viral storms, voters’ decisions are often influenced by their feelings rather than the facts.
Researchers in psychology who have studied this pattern suggest that novelty is a particularly advantageous element for hoaxes. People are predisposed to notice new information, particularly if it makes them feel surprised or disgusted. Hoaxes thrive on volatility, in contrast to facts, which frequently arouse stable emotions like trust or sadness. In online communities, sharing them becomes a subliminal status boost and a symbolic mark of being “in the know.” Millions of repetitions of this behavioral loop transform minor fabrications into enormous cascades.
This dynamic is amplified by celebrity amplification. Questionable claims spread by prominent figures like Donald Trump, Elon Musk, or pop culture icons are quickly embraced by their audiences. The damage is done, even if retractions are made later. Social science has demonstrated that the illusory truth effect can reinforce a falsehood’s hold even when it is being refuted. Because of this, hoaxes are incredibly resilient and continue to exist long after fact-checks have been released.
The hoax industry has become significantly more sophisticated due to technology. These days, artificial intelligence creates deepfakes that seem incredibly trustworthy, synchronizing faked audio with natural facial expressions. One terrifying example was a video that was created in a lab and showed Barack Obama giving a speech that he never gave. Such illusions used to require Hollywood budgets, but they can now be reproduced with free software. With the increasing affordability and versatility of tools, the risk of a fabricated political reality increases.
There are significant cultural repercussions. Common facts serve as the foundation for discussion in democracies. Viral hoaxes split societies into parallel realities by upsetting that baseline. Fake realities train people to prioritize ideology over facts, as a Boston University study highlighted. As a result, polarization is not an accident but rather a deliberate design in the political environment, supported by algorithms that prioritize engagement over accuracy.
Although manipulation is not new, its scope is unprecedented, as historical echoes remind us. Smear campaigns against rivals such as Mark Antony were common in ancient Rome, and in order to incite public ire during World War I, grotesque fabrications of enemy atrocities were created. Disinformation was a geopolitical weapon exported during the Cold War. However, none of these periods were as quick as TikTok or X, where millions of users quickly consume and duplicate content, changing entire discussions before editors or authorities can step in.
This machinery is also driven by profit. Clicks are drawn to fake stories, and clicks increase ad revenue. Because outrage sells and accuracy lags, networks of hyperpartisan blogs flourish. Tech behemoths waver between vowing to be more moderate and hesitating due to political pressure. Hoaxes thrive in the void created by the inconsistency, frequently going unchecked until their effects are irreparable.
There are solutions, but they take consistent work. Particularly creative have been fact-checking campaigns, cooperative warning labels, and real-time verification tools. However, the most promising route is probably education. Teaching skepticism and digital discernment can significantly increase resilience, as demonstrated by Finland’s investment in media literacy, which has resulted in citizens who are remarkably resistant to disinformation. Countries that do not make investments in these skills continue to be especially at risk.
Ordinary people are also very important. Spreading a hoax is not innocuous; it is an act of contributing to the rewriting of political history. People can slow the spread of unsubstantiated claims by stopping, checking, and avoiding the temptation to spread them. Journalists are also accountable for making sure that accuracy is not sacrificed for expediency. By embracing clickbait over the last ten years, media outlets have unwittingly taught viewers to value speed over content. Deliberate storytelling that values depth and verification is necessary to buck that trend.
Although the task at hand is formidable, it is not insurmountable. Although viral hoaxes will always surface, collective action can greatly lessen their ability to alter political realities. Societies can restore the equilibrium between truth and fiction with the help of exceptionally successful literacy initiatives, more robust platform accountability, and remarkably transparent communication from reliable sources. Evidence should guide political discourse rather than being influenced overnight by the digital equivalent of rumor mills.
When lies spread more quickly than facts, democracy itself is at risk in addition to disinformation. Creating cultures where truth is respected, digital tools are used responsibly, and resilience is the norm is just as important as dispelling hoaxes. In this way, collective trust in evidence can secure political realities rather than rewriting them with lies.
