Source: Sky.com

Checking Sources Before Sharing

Simple habits to help you spot misinformation before it spreads. One of the most powerful tools we have is simply pausing before sharing. It doesn’t have to be complicated - just a few quick checks can make a big difference in stopping misinformation in its tracks. Unfortunately, a repeated phrase of mine has become ‘I haven’t actually fact checked this so take it with a grain of salt’ in many conversations.

Spotting Trustworthy Sources

Before sharing a story, take a moment to ask: Where is this coming from?

• Check the Publisher
  Does the site list its editorial team, funding sources, or mission statement? Reliable outlets are transparent about who they are and what they stand for. If you’re struggling to find this info, that’s a red flag.

• Watch for Bias
  Every outlet has some bias, but if the story leans heavily into one side without presenting facts or references, be cautious. It’s worth seeing if other, more balanced sources are covering the same topic.

• Scrutinise the Author
  Do they have experience or expertise in this area? A quick Google search can reveal if they’ve written credible work before or if this is a one-off piece with no background to support it.

Quick Tip: Use the Wayback Machine to see if an article has been edited or changed after publication. This can reveal if the story’s been quietly updated to fix mistakes without acknowledging them.

Reverse Image Searches and Video Verification

A picture is worth a thousand words - but sometimes, those words are misleading.

For Images:

• Save or screenshot the image.

• Upload it to a reverse image search site like Google Images or TinEye.

• See if it’s been used before, and in what context.

For Videos:

• Take a screenshot of a key moment and reverse search it like a photo.

• Look for clues in the video itself - logos, landmarks, or even language on signs can help trace its origin.

Quick Tip: Even if an image is real, the caption might not be. Double-check dates, locations, and events to make sure everything lines up.

Fact-Checking Websites and Expert Opinions

When in doubt, lean on the pros.

• Fact-Checking Sites
  Use trusted platforms like Snopes, Full Fact, FactCheck.org, or PolitiFact. They specialise in digging into viral claims and controversies.

• Find the Right Experts
  For complex topics like climate science or legal issues, seek out peer-reviewed research or statements from qualified specialists. Be wary of people presenting themselves as experts in one field while commenting on unrelated topics.

Quick Tip: Always check an expert’s credentials. A medical doctor isn’t automatically a climate expert, and vice versa.

Avoiding Clickbait and Ragebait

The stronger your immediate reaction to something, the more reason to give it a second look.

• Spot the Clickbait
  Look for excessive exclamation points, ALL CAPS, or dramatic phrases like 'DESTROYS,' 'You Won’t Believe,' ‘Once you see this,’ or 'Shocking Truth Revealed.' (If you go scrolling a bit on X’s For You page you’ll spot these quickly)

• Read more than the headline:
  Does the article match the headline, or is it trying to lure you in with sensationalism? Or is the story not really connected to the headline at all? See if other reputable sources are covering the same story, and if so what’s the angle?

Quick Tip: If a headline feels too emotional, ask yourself - is this meant to inform me, or just rile me up?

Advocacy for Transparent, Accountable Platforms

But let’s be real not everything is about personal responsibility sometimes, the platforms, brands, media outlets themselves need to do better and held to account. How can you start there?

• Use Reporting Tools:
  Flag suspicious posts or accounts. Platforms like Twitter/X and Facebook rely on user reports to identify repeat offenders.

• Push for Better Policies:
  Support initiatives that call for transparency in political ads, algorithm design, and stricter rules on bots and astroturfing.

• Join Media Literacy Initiatives:
  Grassroots groups promoting media literacy and digital citizenship are growing. Supporting or joining these communities can amplify calls for better platform governance.
  
  Media literacy initiatives in London include key programs like the Guardian Foundation's Media Literacy Ambassador Programme, Shout Out UK, and Ofcom's Making Sense of Media, which focus on fighting fake news and educating young people.

Misinformation spreads because it’s easy to share without thinking. But by taking small, simple steps, such as pausing, checking, and questioning, we can slow it down and build a healthier, more informed digital space.

This is why I compiled this series in the first place, I felt increasingly powerless facing the flurry of news in the past day, weeks, months, and really, years.

With my background in social media, marketing and strategy, and alongside my interest into media and its history this felt like a natural intersection of things I spend a lot of time thinking about. I wanted to educate myself a bit more, dig deeper into some of the things I kept coming across, and bring some order to it all for myself.

Hopefully it has also been useful to you if you’ve found yourself feeling similarly overwhelmed or wondering what you can actually do.

I don’t think the answer is to question absolutely everything we see online. But maybe it is to get a little better at recognising when something deserves a second look, understanding why certain things reach us in the first place, and knowing where to look when we’re not sure.

If you’ve read the series, I’d genuinely love to know what you thought, or what I’ve missed.

References & Further Reading (Part VI)

• Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369.

• PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, Full Fact, Snopes (various articles debunking viral claims).

• UNESCO. (2020). Journalism, 'Fake News' & Disinformation: A Handbook for Journalism Education and Training.

• Tandoc, E. C. (2019). The facts of fake news: A research review. Sociology Compass, 13(9), e12724.

Viral conversation and mostly rumours aren’t always the result of organic conversations. Sometimes, organised, well-funded efforts drive the spread of misinformation, deliberately steering online discourse for political or financial gain. This is called astroturfing, where coordinated efforts fake the appearance of grassroots support or opposition, showing how easily digital spaces can be steered from the top down.

Parts 2 and 3 looked at how rumours evolve naturally and what psychological forces keep them spreading. This part focuses on deliberate interference. Politically motivated groups, corporate PR teams, and special-interest lobbyists all use astroturfing tactics to push an agenda, whether that’s a policy position, a product, or a band. Once you know what to look for, you start noticing how often ‘public opinion’ isn’t especially public, or especially spontaneous.

And it’s not just about fake accounts (anymore). As you’ll see later in this piece, the platforms themselves can do some of astroturfing’s work for free, by surfacing one opinion enough times in different fonts that it starts to feel like consensus, no coordination required.

Subscribe now

Defining Astroturfing: Manufactured public support

The term 'astroturf' comes from the artificial grass brand, a fake version of the real thing (Howard, 2006). Instead of genuine public interest, astroturfing relies on organised campaigns that pay or incentivise real or fake users to post uniform messages, creating the illusion of widespread agreement or outrage.

Two examples show how far this can reach:

During the Brexit referendum, several groups that presented themselves as independent grassroots campaigns for leaving the EU were later found to have direct links to the official Vote Leave campaign. This manufactured a false sense of widespread, independent support that wasn’t there in reality (newstatesman.com).

In 2012, the Responsible Energy Citizen Coalition launched what looked like a citizen-led campaign to influence European Parliament reports on shale gas exploration. It was later exposed as an astroturfing effort backed by industry interests (onlinelibrary.wiley.com).

Astroturfing exploits the trust people place in public sentiment, and community discussions, steering opinions without revealing the manipulation behind it.

Beyond Politics: Astroturfing in the everyday, and from celebrity to entertainment

Astroturfing isn’t just limited to elections or public policy. It appears in everyday spaces like travel, entertainment, and consumer culture, subtly shaping perceptions and influencing decisions.

When I visited Albania two years ago, I noticed something. Restaurants, beaches, and other businesses often ask visitors to leave reviews, which isn’t unusual itself. But what caught my attention were the agencies openly advertising services to write fake reviews around the towns, offering to boost online reputations for a fee.

Some businesses there hire agencies to flood Google and TripAdvisor with glowing reviews, easily swaying potential customers into believing a service is better than it really is (theinnerdolphin.com).

I also spent several years in the music and entertainment industry, where astroturfing tactics are sometimes used to manufacture an artist’s popularity, something I saw play out firsthand. Labels, PR teams and marketing agencies can orchestrate artificial buzz to make a song or artist look more popular than it is: a tactic that’s older than the internet itself. In the 1950s, the payola scandal exposed record labels secretly paying radio DJs to play their songs, manufacturing hits out of paid airplay rather than genuine demand; it became a criminal offence in the US by 1960, though the practice never fully disappeared. Today’s version just runs on different infrastructure: bot streams inflating numbers, or coordinated ‘fan’ accounts flooding social media with the same hashtags and talking points.

In 2024, Normani, formerly of Fifth Harmony, was caught up in controversy when a fan account, @NormaniNation, posted a screenshot that revealed the "Edit Profile" button, something only visible to the account owner. This led to speculation that she herself was managing the account, crafting the illusion of grassroots fan support. When questioned, Normani sidestepped the accusations, neither confirming nor denying her involvement (the-sun.com).

One more recent example: a marketing firm called Chaotic Good Projects became the centre of a music-industry controversy after Wired reported that the buzz around the band Geese was, in the outlet’s words, a ‘psyop’ built on networks of TikTok accounts designed to push the band’s music into the recommendation algorithm and manufacture the appearance of organic discourse. The story provoked pushback from the band and from music journalists, who argued the piece overstated how effective these tactics actually are. That pushback is itself worth noting: the companies selling astroturfing services have every incentive to convince you they work. (wired.com)

Astroturfing also shows up in the messier, more adversarial end of celebrity PR. In her 2024 legal complaint against Justin Baldoni, actor Blake Lively alleged that his crisis PR team had planned to ‘bury’ her reputation by hiring contractors to flood social media with coordinated, untraceable narratives portraying her as difficult to work with. Here astroturfing was used not to build support, but to manufacture opposition instead (similar to Depp vs Heard - bbc.com). A later data analysis reportedly found overlap between accounts pushing narratives in that campaign and accounts involved in a separate, unrelated smear campaign. A reminder that the same networks of fake or duplicate accounts (often called “sock puppets” in the industry) can be recycled across totally different targets. (people.com)

Genuine fans might feel pressured to match the manufactured enthusiasm, reinforcing the illusion of widespread support or innocence where none really exists.

Key Tactics in Astroturfing

Astroturfing works by blending in with genuine engagement, which is making it tricky to spot. A handful of recurring tactics do most of the work.

Paid Influencers and Commenters
Companies or political groups pay influencers to promote a viewpoint under the guise of authentic opinion. Another variation is the 'comment army', these are groups of individuals or contractors managing coordinated accounts to shift narratives across forums, TikTok comments, or Twitter threads. These comments are aimed to flood a conversation with praise or criticism to sway opinion.

Sock-Puppet Accounts
A sock-puppet account is a fake online identity created for deceptive purposes. One person might run multiple accounts, each adopting different personas to make it seem like a larger, diverse group that shares the same viewpoint. Read a handy deeper dive here.
Even when a specific sock-puppet claim turns out to be false, the underlying tactic is real: in a 2026 defamation deposition, Elon Musk admitted under oath to operating two undisclosed burner accounts on X, confirming the practice happens even at the platform-owner level (Independent.com) And arguably, the @america account on Twitter/ X could be considered a sock-puppet account as well, more on that here.

Bot Networks
Automated bots can like, share, and post across social media at scale. When enough bots promote the same hashtag or content, it can trend quickly. Consequently drawing in real users who believe they’re engaging with an authentic movement, and giving the topic momentum that often outlasts the original push.

Coordinated Hashtag Campaigns
Groups may plan hashtag pushes at specific times, often during peak online activity. If enough accounts post simultaneously, the hashtag can climb trending charts on X formerly Twitter, attracting attention from journalists and mainstream media. These campaigns rely on the assumption that trending topics reflect genuine public interest, when in fact, it’s a carefully timed effort designed to manufacture attention.

Warning Signs of Organised Campaigns

So what can you look out for to distinguish ‘real’ opinion from astroturfing?Astroturfing is designed to mimic authentic engagement, but it usually leaves traces. A few red flags can help separate genuine public sentiment from manufactured noise.

Repeated Language: When multiple accounts post identical or near identical wording, it’s often a sign of a prearranged script. Genuine conversation tends to have natural variation in phrasing, while coordinated campaigns rely on repetition to push a message.

Sudden Engagement Spikes: An abrupt surge in likes, shares, or follower counts - especially on previously low-profile accounts can signal automated activity. Viral moments happen organically but a consistent, unexplained spike is more often a sign of manipulation.

Time-Stamped Coordination: If posts flood in within a narrow timeframe, especially across different accounts promoting the same message or hashtag, it’s a strong indicator of deliberate scheduling. This tactic is common in coordinated hashtag campaigns designed to game trending algorithms.

Stock/AI Profiles: Accounts using generic profile photos, AI-generated faces, or empty bios often lack a genuine identity. A quick reverse image search, AI image check or a glance at their posting history can reveal whether an account is authentic or part of a larger astroturfing effort.

Ethical and Societal Ramifications

Astroturfing distorts public perception by manufacturing widespread support or outrage that wasn’t really there to begin with. This manipulation can lead consumers, voters, or fans to make choices they wouldn’t have made under transparent conditions. Over time, repeated exposure to these tactics erodes trust in social media platforms, media, politics and online discourse more broadly (Woolley & Howard, 2019).

Impact on Democracy
Voters may be swayed by supposed public sentiment that’s been artificially engineered by paid operators, undermining the integrity of democratic processes.

Impact on Markets
Consumers buy into products, services, or artists on the strength of reviews and buzz that turn out to be bought rather than earned.

Impact on Social Fabric
People become increasingly cynical, suspecting that any popular online movement might be 'fake.' That scepticism ends up damaging genuine grassroots efforts as collateral damage.

Impact on Individual Perception
There’s a subtler cost too, and it’s the one the algorithm example above points to: even without a coordinated campaign, a feed that quietly narrows around one opinion can leave you certain you know ‘what everyone thinks’ when you’ve really just seen a loop of your own first reaction. Astroturfing manufactures consensus deliberately; algorithms can do it as a side effect, and the second version is harder to notice precisely because no one designed it maliciously.

Fighting Back Against Coordinated Misinformation

Astroturfing thrives in the grey areas of digital communication, but there are ways to push back.

Platform Responsibility
Tech companies have the power tpoimprove their detection systems for mass-created accounts and identical messaging (AI anyone?). Clear labelling of sponsored content and paid posts also helps users distinguish between authentic engagement and manipulation.

Regulatory Frameworks
Some jurisdictions require transparency in political advertising and social endorsements. But astroturfing remains difficult to regulate globally, it often operates just below the threshold of existing legal frameworks, and is frequently orchestrated via accounts based outside the jurisdictions trying to police it. There’s no clean fix for this. The two levers that do reach across borders are platform-level enforcement (imperfect, but it doesn’t stop at a national boundary the way regulation does) and growing cooperation between regulators and researchers to track coordinated campaigns across multiple platforms at once, rather than one country or one site at a time.

Public & Algorithmic Awareness
Recognising the tactics covered earlier, e.g. repeated language, sudden spikes, stock/ AI profiles helps us users question sudden waves of uniform praise or outrage rather than take them at face value. Platforms and regulators, even at their best, will never catch everything; an informed public is the last line of defence.

None of the above fully addresses the individual-level version from earlier, a feed that narrows around one opinion with no campaign behind it. That one has no institutional fix. The only real defence is a habit: actively seeking out other angles on a topic instead of assuming your feed is a representative sample of what people actually think.

So, what would I like you to take away from this, if it’s only one thing? It would be this question: Am I seeing what people think, or am I seeing what someone wants me to think people think?

Let’s see you for the next part, part 5!

Subscribe now

References & Further Reading

• Howard, P. N. (2006). New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen. Cambridge University Press.

• Woolley, S. C., & Howard, P. N. (Eds.). (2019). Computational Propaganda: Political Parties, Politicians, and Political Manipulation on Social Media. Oxford University Press.

• Ferrara, E., Varol, O., Davis, C., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2016). The rise of social bots. Communications of the ACM, 59(7), 96–104.

• Marwick, A., & Lewis, R. (2017). Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online. Data & Society Research Institute.

Subscribe now

Every few weeks on LinkedIn, I’ll come a cross a post, aka hot take, declaring that engagement rate is ‘the worst metric in social media’, like ever! Mostly it is then brought up that view time, shares etc. are much more meaningful, and that blatantly everyone still relying on engagement rate SUCKS!

The argument usually goes like this, engagement rate rewards vanity interactions, ignores business impact, and pushes brands to chase interaction over tangible results. And to be fair, there is some truth in that. But writing it off as useless misses something important. But the conclusion that engagement rate is therefore useless misses something important.

Used properly, engagement rate is not a vanity metric. I’d actually argue that no metric is a vanity metric if not viewed in isolation, i.e. a growing following isn’t ‘just’ a vanity metric. First and foremost, you cannot decide on a metric being useless if you do not know the business and social media objectives - let’s start there.

A working example

I’ll try to illustrate this with an example I faced in the past year. I was tasked with developing an organic social media strategy, but also a measurement framework that could be applied to multiple brands, across multiple social media channels at very different points of maturity. One brand in particular has fallen into the trap of chasing virality, and it has done fairly successfully from a numbers perspective but what it couldn’t prove was actual long-term impact. Mentions of the brand were fairly low in the comments, and from an outsider the posts could have come from any brand or creator in the sector without being able to tell who this was about, meaning that millions of views were likely doing very little.

Another brand had an ‘outstanding’ engagement rate looking at reach versus the engagements. This account was also a nano account with just over 1k followers, so whilst the engagement rate was way above the accounts with the 6 or 7 figure following (let’s say around 10%) - based on the size of the account, it should have been way above that number.

However, leadership was expecting a similar engagement metric for the big accounts and believed that the small account did something right. In reality this wasn’t the case, as the small brand account didn’t reach outside its small audience - whereas the other accounts achieved this.

So my starting point was reviewing the business and marketing objectives and how the organic content and channel strategy can support this, providing practical steps to move forward, and worked out a way of telling the story with a set of metrics that were assigned to each of the, in this case, three objectives. All anchored deeply in the so what.

As a result of reworking the social strategy we were able to measure a tangible result aka content resonance for the audience - both increasing the engagement rate and increasing higher quality comments (which we defined in advance) and general engagement outside of the direct audience. With a bigger team, we could have probably become even more sophisticated in the way we measure the impact of different themes/ objectives - rather than looking at one blanket metric with supporting metrics to illustrate the results.

Metrics are there to paint a picture of the situation, see them as the colours you’re using to paint a picture. It is one of the clearest indicators we have of whether content actually resonates with an audience. And how it does and it’s key that additional metrics are in place to measure its success. I.e. what makes a high quality engagement, and on what type of post. This can be as simple as looking at comment volume, quality, clicks, saves or shares, and their percentage versus reach – but not all of them at once.

Engagement rate measures resonance, not relevance

Another misunderstanding comes from confusing relevance with resonance. Relevance is when the content appears in front of the right audience, at the right time, on the right topic. It earns attention because it makes sense in that context. So it is about what you’re talking about and where you are talking about it.

Resonance is what should happen next. Resonance in content is the ability of a message to create a deep emotional, intellectual, or personal connection with its intended audience, going beyond mere attention to spark recognition, relatability, and action.

So what are the signifiers of resonance? And lets look at this specifically from the social media lens and what we can easily measure. Resonant content creates a response. People react, comment, save, share, or pass it along (dark social).

Engagement rate is one of the few metrics that captures that difference. The other lever you can pull here is social listening BUT not every brand or account has the ability to analyse this as it tends to be more expensive.

To remember a post can capture attention, and therefore highly relevant on a platform and at the same time not resonate with the audience. It just doesn’t stick.

Why algorithms still care about engagement

Another reason engagement rate remains useful is simple, platforms themselves still treat engagement as a quality signal for the algorithm ranking.

Instagram, for example, now effectively runs on two parallel distribution systems:

• Connected reach → people who already follow you

• Unconnected reach → people who don’t follow you yet (Explore, Reels, recommendations)

And the important nuance here is that not all engagement types are weighted the same. For both, key signals like watch time, likes and sends matter. But likes tend to carry slightly more weight when content is shown to your existing audience, whereas sends and shares are stronger signals when it comes to reaching new people. One shows that your audience enjoys your content, the other that it’s worth spreading beyond them.

Most ranking systems across major platforms consider some form of interaction when determining distribution. Meaning that engagement rate is not just a reflection of audience behaviour, it’s also how visibility is decided on a variety of platforms.

To add here, view time is an important metric that would be great to be able to report on better across social media platforms, but that is mostly reserved for paid campaigns and not so much for organic content unfortunately.

Where engagement rate goes wrong

The real problem appears when engagement rate becomes the only metric people care about. And are looking at it without considering the social media objective(s) or other metric that may support telling a better story.

Also if content is designed purely to provoke reactions (see ragebait for example) or encouraging superficial interactions rather than meaningful ones, engagement rate becomes detached from strategy.

What engagement rate is actually good for

Engagement rate works best when it sits alongside other indicators:

• reach and distribution metrics

• audience growth (yes! not a pure vanity metric either)

• traffic and downstream actions

• qualitative signals like comment quality or share behaviour

Seen in that wider context, engagement rate becomes a diagnostic tool rather than a scoreboard.

Additionally, it can also be adapted, so you weight certain types of engagement higher than others.

An example:
Weighted Engagement Rate=(0.10×Like Rate)+(0.20×Comment Rate)+(0.30×Share Rate)+(0.40×Click Rate)

This weighted engagement rate combines different engagement actions into a single score, weighting clicks most heavily, followed by shares, comments, and likes, while adjusting each by impressions so the result reflects relative impact rather than raw volume.

The metric isn’t the problem

So, when used thoughtfully, engagement rate can reveal a number of useful things:

• whether content resonates with the audience it reached

• whether creative formats are working (although I also wish there was a better way to report on view rate across the various social platforms)

• whether a message connects emotionally

In other words, engagement rate helps answer a question that many social strategies still struggle with:

Did the content actually land?

That question may sound simple, but it sits at the heart of effective social media. And it specifically caters to brands that are not able to report on social listening constantly, or at all.

And finally — (P.S. I decided on this em dash for impact, I’ve not used ChatGPT or other LLMs to write this) again, all of the above really depends on your social media objectives.

Further reading:

Social media algorithms: 2026 guide for every major network - Hootsuite

The Effectiveness Equation - Google Report

System 1 - The long & the short of it

++++++++GERMAN TRANSLATION++++++++
Eine Verteidigung der Engagement Rate

Warum die Metrik, die alle gern hassen, meiner Meinung nach immer noch relevant ist

Kat Ober
11. April 2026

Alle paar Wochen begegnet mir auf LinkedIn ein Post – meist als „Hot Take“ verpackt –, der erklärt, dass die Engagement Rate die schlechteste Metrik in Social Media überhaupt sei. Häufig wird dann argumentiert, dass View Time, Shares etc. deutlich aussagekräftiger seien und dass ganz offensichtlich alle, die sich noch auf die Engagement Rate verlassen, schlicht nicht verstanden haben, wie Social funktioniert.

Das Argument sieht meist so aus: Die Engagement Rate belohnt oberflächliche Vanity-Interaktionen, ignoriert den Business Impact und verleitet Marken dazu, Interaktion um der Interaktion willen zu jagen – statt messbare Ergebnisse zu erzielen. Und fairerweise: Da ist ein Körnchen Wahrheit drin. Aber sie deshalb pauschal als nutzlos abzutun, greift zu kurz.

Richtig eingesetzt ist die Engagement Rate keine Vanity Metric. Ich würde sogar behaupten, dass keine Metrik eine Vanity Metric ist, wenn sie nicht isoliert betrachtet wird – ein wachsendes Following ist zum Beispiel eben auch nicht „nur“ eine Vanity Metric. Vor allem aber: Man kann nicht beurteilen, ob eine Metrik sinnvoll oder sinnlos ist, ohne die zugrunde liegenden Business‑ und Social‑Media‑Ziele zu kennen. Genau dort sollte man anfangen.

Ein konkretes Beispiel

Ich möchte das anhand eines Beispiels aus dem vergangenen Jahr illustrieren. Ich war damit beauftragt, eine organische Social‑Media‑Strategie zu entwickeln – inklusive eines Messframeworks, das auf mehrere Marken, über verschiedene Plattformen hinweg und bei sehr unterschiedlichen Reifegraden anwendbar war.

Eine Marke war besonders stark in die Falle der Viralität getappt. Rein zahlenmäßig war das durchaus erfolgreich. Was sie aber nicht belegen konnte, war ein tatsächlicher langfristiger Effekt. Marken‑Mentions in den Kommentaren waren gering, und für Außenstehende hätten die Posts genauso gut von jeder anderen Marke oder jedem Creator aus der Branche stammen können. Millionen von Views, die am Ende wahrscheinlich kaum Wirkung entfalteten.

Eine andere Marke wiederum wies eine „herausragende“ Engagement Rate auf, gemessen an Reichweite versus Interaktionen. Allerdings handelte es sich hier um einen Nano‑Account mit etwas über 1.000 Followern. Zwar lag die Engagement Rate deutlich über der von Accounts mit sechs- oder siebenstelliger Followerzahl (etwa bei 10 %), doch gemessen an der Accountgröße hätte sie eigentlich noch deutlich höher liegen müssen.

Die Führungsebene erwartete jedoch vergleichbare Engagement‑Werte für die großen Accounts und ging davon aus, dass der kleine Account etwas „richtig“ mache. In Wirklichkeit war das nicht der Fall: Der kleine Account erreichte kaum Menschen außerhalb seiner bestehenden Community – während die größeren Accounts genau das schafften.

Mein Ausgangspunkt war daher, zunächst die Business‑ und Marketingziele sauber zu definieren und zu prüfen, wie organische Inhalte und die Channel‑Strategie diese Ziele unterstützen können. Darauf aufbauend habe ich einen Messansatz entwickelt, der die Geschichte mit einer klaren Auswahl an Metriken erzählt – jeweils direkt verknüpft mit den (in diesem Fall drei) definierten Zielen und immer mit einem klaren So what?.

Als Ergebnis der überarbeiteten Social‑Strategie konnten wir einen konkreten Effekt messen – nämlich Content‑Resonanz. Sowohl die Engagement Rate als auch die Qualität der Kommentare (die wir vorab definiert hatten) stiegen. Gleichzeitig nahm auch die Interaktion außerhalb der bestehenden Zielgruppe zu. Mit einem größeren Team hätten wir die Wirkung einzelner Themen oder Ziele vermutlich noch granularer messen können, statt mit einer übergeordneten Metrik plus unterstützenden Metriken zu arbeiten.

Metrics als Diagnose, nicht als Selbstzweck

Metriken helfen dabei, ein Bild der Situation zu zeichnen – man kann sie sich wie Farben vorstellen, mit denen man malt. Sie gehören zu den klarsten Indikatoren dafür, ob Inhalte bei einer Zielgruppe tatsächlich Resonanz erzeugen. Entscheidend ist dabei, wie diese Resonanz aussieht, und dass ergänzende Metriken genutzt werden, um Erfolg richtig einzuordnen: etwa, was als qualitativ hochwertige Interaktion gilt und bei welchem Content‑Typ. Das kann so simpel sein wie ein Blick auf Kommentarvolumen, ‑qualität, Klicks, Saves oder Shares – jeweils im Verhältnis zur Reichweite. Aber nicht alles gleichzeitig.

Engagement Rate misst Resonanz, nicht Relevanz

Ein weiteres Missverständnis entsteht, wenn Relevanz und Resonanz gleichgesetzt werden. Relevanz bedeutet, dass ein Inhalt der richtigen Zielgruppe, zum richtigen Zeitpunkt und zum richtigen Thema ausgespielt wird. Er erhält Aufmerksamkeit, weil er in diesem Kontext Sinn ergibt – es geht also darum, was man sagt und wo man es sagt.

Resonanz ist das, was danach passiert. Resonanz beschreibt die Fähigkeit eines Inhalts, eine emotionale, intellektuelle oder persönliche Verbindung herzustellen – über reine Aufmerksamkeit hinaus, bis hin zu Wiedererkennung, Identifikation und Handlung.

Und woran erkennt man Resonanz, speziell aus Social‑Media‑Perspektive? Resonanter Content löst eine Reaktion aus. Menschen reagieren, kommentieren, speichern, teilen oder verbreiten ihn weiter (auch im Dark Social).

Die Engagement Rate ist eine der wenigen Metriken, die diesen Unterschied abbilden kann. Eine weitere Möglichkeit wäre Social Listening – allerdings steht diese Option nicht jeder Marke oder jedem Account zur Verfügung, da sie meist kostenintensiver ist.

Wichtig ist: Ein Post kann Aufmerksamkeit erzeugen und damit hoch relevant für eine Plattform sein – und dennoch keine Resonanz auslösen. Er bleibt nicht hängen.

Warum Algorithmen weiterhin Engagement berücksichtigen

Ein weiterer Grund, warum Engagement Rates nach wie vor relevant sind: Plattformen selbst nutzen Engagement weiterhin als Qualitätssignal für ihre Ranking‑Algorithmen.

Instagram etwa arbeitet inzwischen mit zwei parallelen Distributionslogiken:

Connected Reach → Menschen, die dir bereits folgen
Unconnected Reach → Menschen, die dir noch nicht folgen (Explore, Reels, Empfehlungen)

Der entscheidende Punkt dabei: Nicht jede Interaktionsform wird gleich gewichtet. Für beide Reichweitenarten spielen Signale wie Watch Time, Likes und Sends eine Rolle. Likes wiegen tendenziell stärker, wenn Inhalte der bestehenden Community ausgespielt werden, während Sends und Shares wichtigere Signale für Reichweite außerhalb der eigenen Followerschaft sind. Das eine zeigt, dass deine Community den Content mag – das andere, dass er es wert ist, weiterverbreitet zu werden.

Die meisten großen Plattformen berücksichtigen irgendeine Form von Interaktion bei der Verteilung von Content. Engagement Rate ist damit nicht nur ein Spiegel des Nutzerverhaltens, sondern auch ein Faktor dafür, wie Sichtbarkeit entsteht.

Ergänzend: View Time ist eine extrem wertvolle Metrik, die man gern differenzierter reporten würde. Leider ist sie auf den meisten Plattformen vor allem für Paid‑Kampagnen verfügbar und weniger für organischen Content.

Wo die Engagement Rate problematisch wird

Problematisch wird es dann, wenn die Engagement Rate zur einzigen Metrik wird – und losgelöst von Social‑Media‑Zielen oder unterstützenden Metriken betrachtet wird.

Auch wenn Content gezielt darauf ausgelegt ist, Reaktionen zu provozieren (Stichwort Ragebait) oder oberflächliche Interaktionen zu fördern, entkoppelt sich die Engagement Rate von der eigentlichen Strategie.

Wofür die Engagement Rate tatsächlich gut ist

Am besten funktioniert die Engagement Rate im Zusammenspiel mit anderen Indikatoren:

• Reichweiten‑ und Distributionsmetriken

• Wachstum der Zielgruppe (ja – auch das ist keine reine Vanity Metric)

• Traffic und nachgelagerte Aktionen

• qualitative Signale wie Kommentarqualität oder Share‑Verhalten

In diesem Kontext wird die Engagement Rate zu einem Diagnose‑Tool statt zu einer Rangliste.

Zusätzlich lässt sie sich anpassen, indem bestimmte Interaktionsarten höher gewichtet werden als andere.

Beispiel:
Gewichtete Engagement Rate =
(0,10 × Like‑Rate) + (0,20 × Kommentar‑Rate) + (0,30 × Share‑Rate) + (0,40 × Klick‑Rate)

Diese gewichtete Engagement Rate kombiniert verschiedene Interaktionen zu einem Score, wobei Klicks am stärksten gewichtet werden, gefolgt von Shares, Kommentaren und Likes. Jede Komponente wird dabei auf Impressions bezogen, sodass relative Wirkung statt absoluter Menge abgebildet wird.

Das Problem ist nicht die Metrik

Richtig eingesetzt kann die Engagement Rate hilfreiche Antworten liefern:

• ob Content bei der erreichten Zielgruppe resoniert

• ob Formate funktionieren (auch wenn ich mir bessere plattformübergreifende Reporting‑Optionen zur View Rate wünschen würde)

• ob eine Botschaft emotional anschließt

Anders gesagt:
Die Engagement Rate hilft, eine Frage zu beantworten, an der viele Social‑Strategien scheitern:

Ist der Content wirklich angekommen?

Diese Frage klingt simpel, trifft aber den Kern wirksamer Social‑Media‑Arbeit – insbesondere für Marken, die kein kontinuierliches Social Listening betreiben können oder wollen.

Und zum Schluss — (P.S. Ich habe mich bewusst für diesen Gedankenstrich entschieden. Dieser Text wurde nicht mit ChatGPT oder anderen LLMs geschrieben) — gilt wie immer: All das hängt maßgeblich von euren Social‑Media‑Zielen ab.

Danke fürs Lesen von The feed is the mirror! Abonniert kostenlos, um neue Beiträge zu erhalten und meine Arbeit zu unterstützen.

I wash my clothes in a Bosch washing machine, my dishwasher (best investment ever) is a Lamona, I hoover the flat with a Dyson, and wipe the floors with Vileda. My towel is from [missing brand].

I wear Nike Air Rifts to the pub where I choose the beer based on the brand — Guinness. When I go for a run, I open the Runna app on my Apple Watch, I wear adidas shorts and, now that it’s cold, my Danish Endurance leggings, a Merino Icebreaker top, and Brookers running shoes.

Getting ready for work, I use multiple Merit makeup products, a bit of Clinique, Maybelline mascara, and I wash my hair with KMS. I dry it with a [XXX] hairdryer, straighten it with a [XXX] straightener, use Taft hairspray and Hair Story dry styling spray. Nails? Essie and OPI.

To work, I wear my Holzweiler mac, Ganni trousers, and carry a Dr Martens rucksack. I read a book on the Kindle app on my commute — if I’m not listening to Spotify, an audiobook, or a podcast. All of those may play advertising into my ears. I’ll see posters, OOH displays, car brands, shops, real estate signs. If I pay with my card, that’ll be with a specific bank — also a brand. I’ve collected enough Vitality points to get a free coffee from Caffè Nero before walking into the office.

At work, more of the same. A Dell laptop, Apple work phone, Sprinklr for social media management, MS Office for emails and everything else. There’ll be Volvic water sold in the kitchen, and branded electrolytes if I need a boost. If I head out for lunch, it’s often from Itsu.

After work, I go to the gym — Nuffield Health, if I wanted to spend more money I’d go to Third Space.

At this point, I haven’t even mentioned a single social media platform (unless we’re counting Spotify and LinkedIn, which:

1. I use to stay entertained at all times,

2. I literally work with.

But obviously — Instagram. Facebook. (I’m a millennial.) Twitter (I refuse to call it X, also it’s awful). TikTok, eBay, ChatGPT, WhatsApp, Duolingo, Letterboxd, Mubi, Gmail, Depop, Pinterest. There’s more, but you get it.

What I’d like to call out — for myself — is that I genuinely enjoy going onto e-commerce fashion sites. When I get advertised to, I click. I add things to my favourites. I fill my basket. And even though I work in marketing, even though I know I’m being retargeted, even though I know about the “seven touches” — I still click.

And I’d like to not be so heavily influenced by an algorithm in 2026.

I’d love not just the option to opt out — like in the EU where you can pay Meta to stop personalised ads — but something more fundamental. I want to be able to opt out completely. For free. Without losing access. Without downgrading the experience.

Now that the option is here in the UK too, I’ve actually signed up for a month to trial how and if at all opting out of ads on Meta is worth it for me, if I experience social media, at least Meta, in a different way at all. It’s expensive at £6.99 for a month for both Facebook and Instagram.

In the end my social media isn’t the same as my commute. I’m fine with seeing a billboard or a logo on someone’s shoes.
But I don’t agree with my interests being constantly tracked, monetised, used to push things I didn’t even know I wanted. Until the algorithm decided I did.

You see the ad. You ignore it. Then it follows you for days. You break. You buy. Welcome to the feed.

Following the oversaturation of our social media feeds with orange hued Canva templates accompanied by either burning hearts or orange ones, the conversation asking: to trendjack or not to trendjack has restarted once again.

A counter macro-trend on social is brands leaning into more episodical content series. The first time I noticed this shift was in August last year, when the branded TikTok Show ‘The Dealership’ by Mohawk Chevrolet was on everyone’s* lips (*every marketer’s), so much so it made it to a number of news outlets. In more recent months other brands followed suit - Bilt with ‘Roomies’, InStyle with ‘The Intern’, Argos with ‘Arghaüs’ and many others. However, this seems to be one of those trends that have come back around after 10 years, because in 2014 Chipotle launched a satirical web series (4 episodes) called ‘Farmed and Dangerous’ as branded storytelling. It’s often cited as an early branded “show”.

So why is it deemed so effective now? Well, just as it would have been before consistency builds not only trust, it feeds the algorithm, and with the right story telling your core brand message may just stick.

And why have I decided to write about this? Because I think the Deutsche Bahn (German National Rail Company), just created a best practice example of this, and this is my attempt to build a case study for it.

Some context

Image: A selection of screenshots outlining the general consensus about DB’s punctuality

For context, DB (short for Deutsche Bahn) has, for as long as I can remember, had the reputation of being late. And the data backs it up: punctuality for long-distance journeys has sharply declined since 2020, reinforcing public frustration and making the brand an easy target for memes and sarcasm.

Enter ‘Boah, Bahn! Wir sitzen alle im selben Zug.’ – literally “We’re all on the same train” – a play on the phrase “We’re all in the same boat.” It’s Deutsche Bahn’s first-ever fictional web series, featuring actor and comedienne Anke Engelke as ICE train manager Tina. Through humour and storytelling, DB reframes its most criticised traits as shared, human experiences – reminding viewers that staff and passengers are navigating the same chaos together.

The challenge

Deutsche Bahn set out to shift how people talk about the brand. The goal wasn’t to deny delays or distract from them, but to show self-awareness, humanise the brand, and re-engage audiences through humour. The creative challenge was simple but bold: how do you take a long-running national frustration about DB’s lateness (that people pay a lot of money for!) and use it to build brand affinity, relatability, and engagement?

The creative solution

At its core, Boah, Bahn! reframes Deutsche Bahn’s reputation problem through storytelling rather than apology. Instead of releasing a corporate statement or service update, DB built a fictional world around its reality – using humour to reclaim control of the narrative. This move also buys them time, as they are yet to resolve the issues impacting the trains’ punctuality, there won’t be an overnight solution.

It’s stellar casting with Anke Engelke, a household name in Germany, known for her dry wit and ability to make self-deprecating humour feel sincere. By putting her in the role of a train manager who deals with everyday chaos but mostly showcases how everyone is affected by DB’s train delays inclusive of the railway staff, DB signals humility and cultural awareness. Strategically, it moves DB from being the target of jokes to being in on it.

“With love for the job, humor and team spirit, Tina and her crew accompany their passengers on their journey across Germany, face all challenges and always stick together despite all adversity,” is how Deutsche Bahn describes its campaign.

Execution

The campaign was built for both storytelling and shareability. Six short episodes (three to four minutes each) premiered on YouTube in October 2024, directed by Arne Feldhusen (Stromberg, Der Tatortreiniger) and produced by wtf GmbH – a joint venture between btf / bildundtonfabrik and Elastique.

Each episode was then adapted into shorter edits for TikTok and Instagram, ensuring the tone – observational, self-aware, and slightly absurd – stayed consistent across channels. DB also used paid media to drive reach, but the strongest traction came from organic engagement: clips were shared, quoted, and remixed, especially by younger audiences who rarely engage with DB’s official comms.

What’s particularly smart is how the campaign extended beyond the videos. DB’s social team mirrored the series’ tone in community management, replying to comments and building a conversational loop between fiction and reality - ‘Before you ask: yes, all episodes will be released on time!’.

And then, they ALSO activated with creators:

Source: Screenshot from instagram.com/wastarasagt

Impact

Across 55 posts shared on TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook, the campaign generated a total of 64.9M views, averaging 1.18M views per post.

• Instagram led performance with 28.4M views across 15 posts (avg. 1.9M per post) – driving the strongest engagement and shareability.

• TikTok followed with 19.3M views (avg. 1.6M per post) and strong early traction despite a limited number of posts.

• YouTube delivered 13M views (avg. 619K per post), reinforcing the campaign’s long-form strength.

• Facebook added 3.2M views (avg. 457K per post), sustaining reach among legacy audiences.

Whilst a brand lift study is still required to confirm impact, early indicators suggest overwhelmingly positive sentiment and significant awareness across multiple channels. Audience reactions were highly engaged, with comments like ‘At least something to laugh about for once, instead of getting frustrated.’ reflecting cultural resonance and tone alignment. But notably there were also many negative comments still airing frustrations.

The campaign also received substantial earned media attention, including coverage on TV where Anke Engelke discussed it, alongside strong press pickup. The data reflects only early performance, as additional content continues to roll out – signalling potential for even greater reach and sustained momentum.

Why I think this approach works

Deutsche Bahn’s biggest problem isn’t awareness – it’s trust erosion over time. The brand’s lateness isn’t a short-term crisis that a campaign can “solve.” It’s a systemic issue tied to infrastructure, underinvestment, and political complexity. No amount of performance marketing or punctuality stats can shift how people feel about DB in the short term.

That’s where Boah, Bahn! becomes strategically sharp. It doesn’t try to promise improvement; it builds empathy instead. By reframing the brand through humour and storytelling, DB changes the emotional context of the conversation without needing to fix the structural problem overnight.

Storytelling becomes a stopgap form of brand repair:

• It humanises the organisation – moving focus from “the system fails” to “the people inside it care.”

• It shifts expectations – the brand isn’t pretending perfection, it’s acknowledging reality.

• It buys cultural goodwill – audiences are more forgiving of flaws when the brand shows it understands them.

Cognitive processes, such as the illusory truth effect and confirmation bias, influence individuals to accept or reject information based more on belief than fact.

So this is the point to check yourself, will you scroll past TikTok videos that challenge your views?

Platforms like Twitter/X, Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram boost content that keeps people engaged, often pushing sensational stories over thoughtful journalism. Understanding these psychological and tech-driven triggers can help you spot red flags before believing misleading content.

Source: Visual Capitalist

Confirmation Bias: Seeing what you expect to see

Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek, interpret, and recall information in ways that reinforce pre-existing beliefs (Nickerson, 1998). People often share rumours or news stories that match their worldview without thoroughly verifying them, while quickly dismissing anything that challenges their beliefs.

For example, someone who suspects a politician of corruption is more likely to believe any rumour accusing them of wrongdoing, no matter how shaky the source.

Confirmation bias also fuels polarised echo chambers, where rumours pick up speed if they fit the group’s narrative.

The Illusory Truth Effect: Repetition breeds acceptance

The illusory truth effect explains how repetition makes statements feel true, just because they’re familiar (Hasher, Goldstein, & Toppino, 1977). Online, the same rumour pops up across different platforms - from Twitter threads to TikTok videos or podcasts - creating the sense that 'everyone's talking about it.'

For example, when multiple creators share the same opinion on TikTok, it can flood your FYP, making it seem like there’s a widespread consensus. That’s social proof in action!

Even after a rumour gets fact-checked, the constant repetition can still embed it in public perception.

Emotional Ripple: Outrage and empathy as catalysts

Strong emotions like anger, fear, or sympathy drive more engagement than neutral content (Berger & Milkman, 2012). A scandalous tweet or shocking headline spreads fast as people react on impulse.

For example, a 'call-out' video - where someone publicly criticises or exposes another's behaviour - might rack up thousands of views in a day because it fuels collective outrage, overshadowing any careful analysis of the claims made. Similarly, when Selena Gomez shared a tearful video about mass deportations affecting Mexican families, it quickly went viral. While many responded with sympathy, others criticised her for making the issue about herself. The emotional reactions dominated, leaving little space for thoughtful discussion or fact-checking.

Emotional reactions often overpower rational thinking, pushing people to share content without checking if it’s actually true.

Algorithmic Amplification: Feeding the engagement loop

Social media algorithms prioritise content that sparks comments, likes, or shares, often pushing sensational or polarising topics. Platforms use these interactions to keep people engaged and boost ad revenue (Pariser, 2011).

For example, during the 2024 U.S. presidential election, false claims about voter fraud spread rapidly on X (formerly Twitter). One video falsely claimed to show a Haitian immigrant attempting to vote multiple times in Georgia. Despite being debunked as part of a Russian disinformation campaign, the video gained significant engagement and was widely shared, overshadowing accurate reporting (AP). Additionally, incorrect claims made by Elon Musk about the election amassed over 2 billion views on X, amplifying misinformation even further (Reuters).

The result? Reliable, less emotional news gets buried, while unverified or manipulative stories rise to the top.

Echo Chambers and Personalisation

Echo chambers form when people follow only those who share their opinions. Algorithms reinforce this tendency through personalisation, suggesting similar accounts or content based on past interactions, gradually isolating users from alternative viewpoints (Sunstein, 2018). Research shows that social media can limit exposure to diverse perspectives, fostering environments where like-minded users reinforce shared narratives (pnas.org).

In September 2024, false claims circulated online alleging that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were abducting and eating pets. These baseless rumours gained traction as social media algorithms personalised content feeds, pushing similar sensational posts to users already engaging with anti-immigrant narratives. The more users interacted with this type of content, the more their feeds became dominated by it. Despite local authorities and fact-checkers debunking the claims, they continued to spread within these isolated communities, reinforcing existing fears and biases (npr.org).

The result? Personalised, homogenous feeds reduce critical challenge. Contradictory evidence rarely surfaces, allowing rumours to flourish unchecked.

Bots and Automation: Artificial credibility boosters

Coordinated bot networks can flood hashtags or comments to make a rumour appear more popular, drawing in genuine users. Investigations by cybersecurity researchers often reveal tens of thousands of automated accounts at work in political or commercial campaigns.

In July 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice disrupted a Russian government-run bot farm that used AI to impersonate Americans on social media. These fake profiles posted content supporting Russia’s actions in Ukraine, creating the illusion of widespread domestic approval. The operation misled genuine users into believing these views were more popular than they actually were (npr.org).

The result? Bots distort metrics for ‘trending topics,’ tricking people into thinking a viral phenomenon is organic.

Break the Cycle: Spot, Question, Resist

Misinformation thrives at the intersection of psychology and technology. Cognitive biases like confirmation bias and the illusory truth effect shape what people are inclined to believe, while platform algorithms, bots, and echo chambers reinforce and accelerate the spread of unverified claims. The result is a digital environment where viral falsehoods can overshadow credible information.

However, misinformation isn’t inevitable. By critically assessing content, questioning why a particular story appears in your feed, and actively seeking diverse perspectives, users can challenge misleading narratives rather than passively amplifying them. Recognising the role of emotion and engagement-driven platforms can make it easier to step back and ask: Is this being pushed because it’s true, or because it triggers a reaction?

The next instalment explores astroturfing - a form of manipulation where artificial grassroots movements are engineered to appear as organic public sentiment, influencing everything from political discourse to consumer behaviour.

References & Further Reading (Part 3)

• Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205.

• Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(1), 107–112.

• Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.

• Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. Penguin.

• Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press.

• PNAS. (2023). How social media shapes echo chambers and political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved from pnas.org

• NPR. (2024). Russian bot farm used AI to spread misinformation. Retrieved from npr.org

• Reuters. (2024). Elon Musk’s incorrect US election claims amassed 2 billion views on X. Retrieved from reuters.com

• AP. (2024). False claims about voter fraud in Georgia spread widely on social media. Retrieved from apnews.com

• NPR. (2024). False claims about Haitian immigrants in Ohio debunked. Retrieved from npr.org

Although rumours are hardly a new phenomenon, the interconnectedness of social networks has transformed their lifecycle. A casual observer might believe a viral rumour has always been ‘common knowledge,’ when in reality it reached mass visibility through a series of predictable steps.

By following the path from spark to global trend, you may gain a clearer view of how widespread misconceptions take shape. Because so did I, and it helped me go through the stages of checking myself on why I had a certain opinion, why I wanted a certain product and so on.

The Spark: Seeds of speculation

Every rumour begins with a ✨spark✨ a tiny piece of content or commentary that might be harmless in isolation. This could be a snippet from a livestream, a passing headline in a small publication, or a user-generated post mentioning a celebrity sighting or as much as a comment on one of the above. Sometimes, a ✨spark✨ is deliberately planted by individuals with hidden agendas. But more often, it emerges spontaneously. Perhaps a person casually mentions seeing a celebrity at a certain venue under suspicious circumstances and submits it to DeuxMoi, or a X/Twitter poster shares their thoughts about local events without citing a credible source.

At this stage, the information lives only in a small corner of the internet. It might remain there indefinitely if nobody reacts. However, it possesses the potential to move into a second, more powerful phase once the spark resonates emotionally with a particular audience. Curiosity, outrage, or excitement can all motivate readers to share or comment, advancing the content beyond its original confines.

The key risk here is the lack of initial verification and emotion involved. Early consumers of the spark may accept it at face value - especially if it aligns with their existing beliefs - thereby setting the stage for rapid growth.

Local Sharing: Building momentum within communities

After the ✨spark✨ appears, it often circulates within a small community - perhaps a specific TikTok creator’s videos, a fandom-driven Twitter list, or a niche Subreddit. In this stage, personal interpretation and speculation dominate, as enthusiastic group members embellish the rumour with their own comments, theories, or personal anecdotes. Fact-checking is usually minimal; excitement, shock, or groupthink guide the conversation.

For example, if the rumour revolves around a musician, fans might be the first to pick it up, discussing implications for the artist’s next album. Gossip blogs or fan-run social accounts may amplify the story, adding speculative layers that shape public perception. This insular, local sharing is the backbone of rumour propagation: it forges an initial sense of urgency or importance.

The key risk here is Groupthink. And this can be so fun - right, like think off trying to guessing the right easter eggs about the next Taylor Swift album, together you may get closer towards solving it right? Well members of tight-knit communities often avoid challenging the rumour. Instead, they reinforce one another’s assumptions, embedding the story firmly in the group’s shared consciousness.

Algorithmic Boost: The fuel of virality

Modern social media platforms rely on algorithms that highlight content with high engagement (shares, likes, comments, watch time). This algorithmic framework can catapult a rumour from a small circle to millions of users worldwide. Because platforms favour posts that trigger strong reactions - anger (Instagram!), excitement, or even hilarity - sensational or provocative content finds a ready audience. If you look at Twitter’s (I will refuse to call it anything else from here onwards..) For You feed, you will have realised it mostly consists of what opinion Twitter (Elon Musk) wants to enforce - conspiracy theories about plane crashes and who caused them, war videos (that when checked aren’t actually current) and so forth. This one tends to be more on the nose…

A TikTok video speculating about a scandal, for instance, might be boosted if viewers leave an above-average number of comments, propelling it onto more feeds. Twitter might feature a trending hashtag in its ‘Search’ but curated topics section, prompting curious onlookers to click and learn more - often accepting the hype without deeper scrutiny.

The key risks here are echo chambers. Those who interact with the rumour receive even more related content, intensifying confirmation bias and the rumour’s perceived credibility.

Mainstream Adoption: When gossip becomes ‘news’

Following significant social media traction, rumours may attract the attention of mainstream media outlets or creators searching for trending topics with the aim of winning views . Even reputable news organisations occasionally report on a viral claim because it is ‘what people are talking about,’ although coverage styles vary from sceptical to sensational, and just plain clickbait (Facebook I’m looking at you). Mainstream adoption often cements the rumour’s perceived credibility. Audiences who trust major publications may assume a story is true if many outlets report it.

Moreover, businesses or public figures at the centre of the rumour may issue press releases to ‘clarify matters,’ unintentionally prolonging the news cycle. In some cases, celebrities directly address rumours, generating further headlines. The narrative shifts from a fringe conversation to a matter of public record.

The key risk here is false equivalence. Some media outlets may present a rumour alongside legitimate information without clearly distinguishing verified facts from speculation, giving undue weight to a baseless claim.

Viral Peak: Collective obsession

At its highest point, a rumour saturates news feeds and trending topics. Trending hashtags show up on multiple platforms; reaction videos proliferate; pundits debate the topic on talk shows. People who have no prior interest might suddenly join the conversation because it is omnipresent.

It make even make them money. This one is actually a key aspect to be aware of; does driving viewership on this particular topic make the sharer money. And this can come from various places - TikTok creators that are part of the Creator Rewards program for example get paid only for videos 1 minute plus, that is when they become eligible for payouts, some fringe media outlets will make money from placing advertising alongside articles, the more clicks onto their website the more traffic to potentially drive clicks into other areas.

But even moreso for the public, this immersion reinforces the narrative that the rumour must be legitimate, simply by virtue of widespread discussion.

During this stage, businesses, marketers, or creators may seize further opportunities to capitalise on the rumour’s momentum. Memes, merchandise, or spin-off hashtags appear, pushing the claim further into public awareness. Often, any quest for factual accuracy is sidelined by the attention-grabbing novelty of the story with the aim of benefiting from it.

The key risk here is overload and sensationalism. The frenzy around a rumour can drown out trustworthy sources. Readers may find it difficult to locate reliable information in a flood of memes and speculation.

Debunking or Decline: The aftermath

Eventually, more thorough investigations may emerge. Private communications surface, contradictory evidence appears, or reputable voices step forward to challenge the rumour. Sometimes, official statements or legal actions prompt a re-evaluation of the narrative. The rumour either crumbles under scrutiny or persists among die-hard supporters.

However, rumours often leave a persistent trace in the public mind. The illusory truth effect - where repeated statements, even if debunked, retain influence - ensures that a seed of the rumour remains, even after most people have moved on.

The key risk here is residual belief. Those who initially embraced the rumour might hold onto fragments of it, eroding trust in debunking efforts or official clarifications.

The rumour mill follows a predictable pattern: spark, local sharing, algorithmic boost, mainstream adoption, viral peak, then debunking or decline. Recognising these stages can help you as the audience identify when to question claims. And take stock into who is benefiting of it, sometimes it may just be likes on a comment, sometimes it maybe about being the fuel for the fire and sometimes it maybe about reframing public opinion about a topic and its benefitor.

Understanding emotional triggers, algorithmic incentives, and group dynamics can also mitigate the impact of fast-moving, unverified gossip.

Better media literacy and a willingness to investigate sources can slow the pace of rumour proliferation. Still, the digital landscape remains fertile ground for viral speculation. The upcoming article will dive into the psychological and technological underpinnings that make rumours so captivating and persistent - factors that, once understood, can help readers maintain a more sceptical, informed approach.

References & Further Reading (Part 2)

• Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151.

• Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information Disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking. Council of Europe.

• UNESCO. (2020). Journalism, 'Fake News' & Disinformation: A Handbook for Journalism Education and Training.

• Tandoc, E. C., Jenkins, J., & Craft, S. (2019). Fake news as a critical incident in journalism. Journalism Practice, 13(6), 673–689.

What followed was a classic social media back and forth that spiraled into mental gymnastics, goalpost-shifting, and outright misogyny. The guy I debated, Yusuf, went through every play in the bad-faith argument handbook – contradicting himself, shifting blame, and refusing to engage in any kind of intellectual honesty.

I’m breaking down the exchange here. Consider this a case study in how Tate followers think, argue, and ultimately reveal their own insecurities.

Phase 1: Men are in charge because of merit

Yusuf starts strong with the classic “Men work harder, so they deserve to be in charge” argument. According to him, men aren’t in power because of systemic advantages or historical oppression – it’s just that they’re better at making money and running things.

My Response:

I pointed out that this is a lazy excuse that ignores how power structures actually work. If it were purely about merit, then why have men historically hoarded opportunities while excluding women from the same playing field? Also, if men are inherently more “deserving,” why do we still have such blatant disparities even when women perform at equal or higher levels in education and business?

Phase 2: Actually, it’s because they’re rich

Yusuf then subtly pivots. It’s not that men are in charge because they work harder – it’s because rich men are in charge. According to him, wealth is the real factor, not patriarchy.

My Response:

This contradicts his first claim. If it’s all about wealth, then why are men the ones disproportionately accumulating it? The system he’s trying to downplay – patriarchy – is exactly what has allowed rich men to remain rich while keeping wealth concentrated in the hands of a select few. He’s accidentally proving my point.

Phase 3: It’s genderroles, and women are to blame

Seeing that his previous arguments weren’t landing, he then shifts to “Well, it’s not really men’s fault, it’s just natural gender roles”. This is where things take a more bizarre turn – he claims that women are actually responsible for enforcing these roles, so they can’t complain about them.

My Response:

So now it’s not about merit or wealth, but about women upholding gender roles? Convenient. I pointed out that gender roles aren’t some organic, natural occurrence but rather a socially reinforced system. And even if some women do participate in enforcing them, who created the system in the first place? Who benefits from it? The answer is men – specifically, the same rich men he claims are “just better” at accumulating power.

At this point, I could tell he was just cycling through arguments, looking for something that would stick.

Phase 4: Rich men are actually feminists

This was the moment where his argument fully collapsed into absurdity. Out of nowhere, he claimed that rich men aren’t oppressing women at all – if anything, they support feminism because they benefit from women joining the workforce.

My Response:

Wait… so rich men aren’t in charge because of patriarchy, but they’re somehow actively supporting feminism? I pointed out the obvious contradiction: he’s arguing that men are naturally superior while simultaneously claiming they’re pushing feminism. Which one is it?

At this stage, I realised that responding any further was pointless. His argument wasn’t based on logic – it was just a defense mechanism for a worldview he didn’t want to question.

What this interaction taught me

1. These arguments aren’t about logic – they’re about emotion.

   • At first, I thought Yusuf was simply uninformed. But as the conversation went on, it became clear that he wasn’t debating – he was emotionally invested in protecting his beliefs. His shifting arguments weren’t meant to make sense; they were meant to avoid conceding a point.

2. Goalpost shifting is their favorite tactic.

   • First, men were in charge because they worked harder. Then it was because they were rich. Then it was because of gender roles. Then rich men were actually feminists. These people don’t stick to one argument because they don’t have a coherent stance. They just want to keep talking in circles to exhaust you.

3. Andrew Tate’s influence is real – and it’s making young men more extreme.

   • What struck me most about Yusuf wasn’t just the bad arguments, but the undertone of resentment. The way he spoke about women – blaming them, shifting responsibility onto them, and downplaying systemic inequality – was straight out of the Andrew Tate playbook. The dangerous part? He genuinely believed it.

So, should you engage with these people? My take: not unless you want to practice your patience.

Yusuf’s arguments weren’t unique. They were a mishmash of every Tate-inspired talking point designed to derail and exhaust rather than engage in a meaningful discussion. If you ever find yourself in an argument with someone like this, know that:

• They aren’t arguing in good faith.

• They will contradict themselves.

• They will never admit they’re wrong.

Sometimes, the best response is no response at all. But if you do choose to engage, do it like I did – so others don’t have to.

When debating people like Yusuf, you’re rarely convincing them, but you are influencing the people watching. There are always lurkers in these discussions, and many of them may be undecided, questioning, or looking for counterpoints to the toxic narratives they see online. Debunking bad arguments publicly helps shape the broader discourse.

Andrew Tate’s appeal isn’t built on facts, it’s built on emotion. Many of his followers feel lost, overlooked, or powerless, and his rhetoric gives them an easy scapegoat: women. Combating this requires more than just calling out misogyny, it requires showing young men healthier ways to find confidence, purpose, and community.

Reacting to Tate followers one by one isn’t scalable, but shaping the culture around them is. Platforms, media, and influencers need to highlight better male role models- ones who promote ambition, confidence, and success without relying on tearing others down. Tate’s popularity is partly a vacuum problem - there aren’t enough mainstream alternatives that resonate with young men in the same way.

One of the reasons Tate’s influence is so strong is because his followers take his content at face value. Teaching young people to critically evaluate sources, spot manipulation tactics, and challenge their own biases is crucial. Education, both in schools and through accessible, engaging content, can help prevent people from falling into extremist pipelines.

Us social marketers, we go on and on about how social media is mean to be a conversation, how it’s meant to be authentic (and yet still you’re using long emdashes and imo bad CTAs?).

Specifically brands who are better off not diluting their brand stories with half-arsed jumping on trends, way too late anyways, should be focusing on copy writing, and I’m talking about copy writing for organic social here.

1. Stop talking at people!

The biggest problem with broadcasting-style brand copy is that it assumes a passive audience. It pushes messages out without considering whether people want to receive them. The result? People tune out.

Here’s what happens when brands talk at their audience:

• It feels impersonal. Consumers crave connection, but one-way communication creates distance.

• It lacks engagement. No conversation means no reason for people to interact.

• It’s easy to ignore. A social media feed is cluttered - content that doesn’t invite participation gets scrolled past.

2. Instead reframe brand copy to provide value

To move from broadcasting to conversing, brands must shift their mindset from telling to inviting, showing rather than just stating . The goal is to create a space where your audience feels encouraged to participate, respond, and co-create the experience with you.

So how can that be done? I will show you how to get from boring copy to something that feels a bit more valuable to your audience.

Center the audience, not just the brand

Instead of writing from a company-first perspective, ask: What’s in this for my audience? The best-performing brand copy speaks to the audience’s interests, emotions, or experiences.

Take this example by Coca Cola, the engagement on the post definitely showcases that Coca Cola’s audience is excited about the new launch, and this is something they appreciate seeing on social. However, a few tweaks to their copy: “A flavor that takes you back to another place. Coca-Cola Orange Cream is here, try it today!” could have turned it from a post that tells to one that invites.

A more engaging approach, like “Have you ever tried an orange-vanilla combo? Our brand-new Coca-Cola Orange Cream is a first - let us know your first impression!” would spark curiosity and encourage participation.

Do the call-to action right.

Instead of making statements, ask questions that invite your audience to share their experiences or opinions. This naturally sparks conversation and increases engagement.

Let’s break down why I don’t think that the copy on Maybelline’s post above is done well.

Overall, I see what the post is trying to achieve, but it feels more filler than killer (or maybe it will kill the engagement). With just a few tweaks the copy could feel a lot more audience-centric.

Dependent on the brand tone of voice you could go for a copy that comes straighter to the point, and tries to align itself more with ho the audience is feeling, in a more direct way:
”Monday vibe check. Which one matches your energy today?” or “Which shade speaks to your mood today - bold, confident, or playful?”

The Levis post above is a great example of show don’t tell, with copy that’s straight to the point. You can criticise that the copy itself is interchangeable with other brands (yes it is) BUT the post managed to tick of some pretty valid boxes, showcasing product range in an exciting way AND drive engagement in the comments. And the comments speak for themselves.

Tap into emotive & sensory language

People connect with content that makes them feel something. Using sensory words - especially those that evoke sound, texture, or movement - can make your copy more immersive. A nice example is the quote by a perfumer used below on the Aesop Instagram, which brings more context to the visual.

Keep in mind what the algorithm prioritises

Instagram prioritises content that keeps users watching, engaged or share the post. To boost your visibility, use strategic hooks that encourage people to linger.

Techniques to increase watch time:

• Start with an intriguing statement or question

• Create anticipation

• Use storytelling

3. Making social content social

At its core, social media is about interaction, not just consumption. The brands that succeed are those that foster community, encourage participation, and make their audience feel heard. Or they are providing great editorial and serial content ticking of the boxes of entertainment, education and inspiration… bringing extensive value to their audience.

A checklist for better organic social copy-writing

1️⃣ What’s the objective of this content? (Is it meant to entertain, educate, inspire, or evoke emotion?)

2️⃣ What value does this post bring to the audience? (Why should they care?)

3️⃣ Does the copy feel like a conversation or a broadcast? (Am I talking with my audience, not at them?)

4️⃣ Is my CTA clear and engaging, but not engagement bait? (Does it prompt action in a natural, compelling way?)

BONUS: Does the copy create an emotional or sensory connection? (Does it make the audience feel something?)

My answer was to write this series. Do subscribe below to keep in the loop for the next parts.

Social media shapes opinions every day, often in ways we don’t even realise. Whether it’s a trending celebrity rumour or a political narrative gaining traction, the mechanics are the same – amplification, social proof, and algorithmic reinforcement. And if you’ve ever found yourself convinced of something just because you’ve seen it everywhere, you’ve experienced this firsthand.

That’s what this series is about: breaking down how opinions are shaped online and what to look out for.

The first piece dives into a familiar starting point – celebrity gossip. Why? Because you already know the story. And that makes it the perfect way to examine how misinformation spreads, why we get pulled in, and what that means for the bigger picture.

Why start with a celebrity Example? Because You Already Know the Story…

Pop culture dramas involving figures like Selena Gomez or Hailey Bieber grab attention fast. Some people follow these stories as devoted fans, others watch trends for marketing or analysis. And, reader, so do I. These moments dominate social feeds, spark debates, and spread like wildfire - making them the perfect case study for how misinformation takes hold.

Viral celebrity stories demonstrate just how quickly false or misleading claims can gain traction. Enthusiasts share posts they assume are accurate, while social media algorithms boost sensational or emotionally charged content, often without fact-checking.

At first glance, a celebrity rumour might seem trivial. But the same forces that turbocharge a Selena vs. Hailey 'feud' are at play in far more serious areas - from political campaigns to corporate PR and astroturfing tactics. These stories offer a low-stakes way to understand high-impact manipulation.

There is also an additional layer to it, pop culture gossip and memes have become part of the alt-right pipeline, so conversations that we may not immediately realise of being right-wing coded, or are brutalising our communication (I’ve linked an interesting article about this in the references at the end of this article!)

A Glimpse into the Misinformation Machine

From Rumour to 'Fact' in Record Time

A single ambiguous post can ignite an online frenzy. In the Selena–Hailey example, fans spotted what they believed were subtle digs, and speculation took off. Within hours, TikTok deep dives, trending hashtags, and memes flooded feeds. For many, the sheer volume of discussion created a false sense of credibility - if everyone’s talking about it, it must be real.

If you work in marketing, this should feel familiar. Social proof - the idea that we trust what we see others engaging with - plays a huge role here. More comments, more videos, more people repeating a claim can create the illusion of truth.

How You Get Pulled In

Even if you don’t follow celebrity gossip, you’re not immune. Social media platforms prioritise high-engagement content, whether it’s outrage, curiosity, or moral panic. Watch one video, even out of mild curiosity, and suddenly, the algorithm decides you want more. Before long, your FYP is reinforcing a single narrative, narrowing your view of what’s actually happening.

Why These Myths Stick Around

The illusory truth effect - the more you hear something, the more familiar it feels, and the more likely you are to believe it - plays a huge role here (Hasher, Goldstein, & Toppino, 1977). Combine that with confirmation bias - the tendency to accept information that fits what you already believe - and suddenly, a rumour becomes an undeniable truth in your mind.

Far Beyond Celebrity Gossip

A supposed feud between Selena Gomez and Hailey Bieber might not seem like it matters. Neither might the question of whether Paul Mescal really ghosted someone. But the techniques shaping public opinion in these cases apply everywhere.

• Amplification - A single post can be pushed to millions within an hour.

• Polarisation - Forcing people to pick a ‘side’ boosts engagement, prompting algorithms to prioritise divisive content.

• Echo Chambers - Once you engage with one rumour, your feed will show you more of it, reinforcing your beliefs and shutting out alternative perspectives.

These aren’t just quirks of fandom. They’re how digital media operates - and they shape opinions on everything from elections to social issues.

A Launchpad for Larger Discussions

Celebrity scandals are often the first time people experience how misinformation can shift narratives and shape perceptions. If you’ve ever formed an opinion based on incomplete or misleading online ‘evidence,’ you’ve felt this effect firsthand.

And if you think you haven’t? It might be worth looking at how you consume content and how quickly you form opinions - even on something as trivial as celeb news.

This isn’t just about who said what in Hollywood. It’s about how modern media ecosystems - with their rapid-fire news cycles, algorithmic reinforcement, and social proof - create an environment where rumours spread faster than facts.

The next article will take this further, breaking down the anatomy of a rumour - from an obscure comment to a global talking point.

Let’s look at what’s coming next:

Part 2: Dissecting the Rumour Mill – From Whisper to Worldwide Trend
The next instalment will examine the lifecycle of a rumour and highlight the factors that allow it to achieve explosive reach. If you’re into this, do share this article I’m hoping that this is valuable for readers from a wide range of backgrounds, social media users, marketing professionals, or anyone seeking to sharpen critical thinking skills, wanting to find practical insights into identifying viral falsehoods before clicking ‘share.’

References & Further Reading (Part 1)

• Institute for Strategic Dialogue: Memes & the Extreme Right-Wing

• The Independent: I went down the Selena Gomez - Hailey Bieber rabbit hole. This is what I found

• USC Today: USC study reveals the key reason why fake news spreads on social media

• "The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread" by Cailin O’Connor & James Owen Weatherall.

• "Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator" by Ryan Holiday.

• Hasher, Lynn, David Goldstein, and Thomas Toppino. 1977. “The Illusory Truth Effect: When Repetition Increases Perceived Truthfulness.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 6 (2): 107–119

Image source (Image used for illustrative purposes not shot at one of the Southport related riots)

The recent far-right riots in the UK, triggered by the tragic killings in Southport, have highlighted the powerful role social media plays in spreading disinformation and inciting violence. The transformation in communication through social media has created an “algorithmic outrage” environment, significantly impacting how misinformation proliferates and influences public behaviour.

The Background
The Southport incident saw three young girls fatally stabbed, which led to widespread unrest and violence, fuelled by false claims and malicious speculation on platforms like Telegram and X (formerly Twitter). These platforms’ algorithms often prioritise sensational and provocative content, leading to the rapid dissemination of inflammatory and false information. This “polarisation engine” effect has made social media a fertile ground for far-right extremism, echoing similar patterns observed globally.

Researchers and experts, including Nobel laureate Maria Ressa, have noted that the current information ecosystem exacerbates radicalisation by clustering like-minded individuals and amplifying their anger and fears. This has led to a decentralised but potent far-right movement, leveraging social media to mobilise and incite violence, as seen in the riots across various UK cities following the Southport attack.

Image source: Institute for Strategic Dialogue

Increasing Media Literacy

To combat the spread of misinformation and its dangerous consequences, enhancing media literacy among the public is crucial. This includes:

1. Critical Evaluation: Encouraging individuals to critically evaluate the sources and content of the information they consume and share. Checking the credibility of sources and verifying facts before accepting and disseminating information can help mitigate the spread of falsehoods.

2. Education Programs: Implementing comprehensive media literacy education in schools and communities to teach people how to navigate and critically assess digital information.

3. Awareness Campaigns: Running public awareness campaigns to highlight the dangers of misinformation and how to spot and avoid it.

An example of the importance of verifying information is the recent incident involving Nick Lowles, the head of Hope Not Hate, who apologised for spreading a false tweet about an acid attack on a Muslim woman. This underscores the necessity of verifying information before sharing, even for well-intentioned causes.

How Advertisers Can Curb Harmful Content and Influence Platforms

Leverage Spending Power

• Brands and advertisers must utilise their advertising budgets to pressure social platforms into taking meaningful action against harmful content.

• Rather than merely voicing opinions on social media, brands should pull their advertising spend until platforms implement effective measures.

Steps for Advertisers

1. Suspend Ads on Non-Compliant Platforms: Immediately halt advertising on platforms that fail to address hate speech and misinformation.

2. Ensure Ethical Monetisation: Avoid supporting platforms that monetise harmful content, thereby reducing financial incentives for such practices.

3. Demand Transparency and Action: Engage with platforms to demand clear, transparent measures against harmful content.

Collective Responsibility

• Role of Major and Minor Brands: Both large and small advertisers have a crucial role in this effort. Major brands can lead the way, but the collective action of smaller advertisers also significantly impacts.

• De-platforming Power: Advertisers hold significant power to de-platform individuals and entities that promote hate speech by choosing where to allocate their funds.

Addressing the root causes of the recent far-right riots in the UK requires a multi-faceted approach that includes increasing media literacy and holding social media platforms accountable. By educating the public on critical media consumption and leveraging economic influence, we can mitigate the spread of disinformation and prevent future violence. Social media managers and advertisers have a significant role in this effort, ensuring that platforms foster a safer and more informed online environment.

Sources:

• https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/adland-urged-step-social-medias-role-uk-riots/1883359

• https://www.theguardian.com/media/article/2024/aug/03/a-polarisation-engine-how-social-media-has-created-a-perfect-storm-for-uks-far-right-riots

• https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/03/the-far-right-has-moved-online-where-its-voice-is-more-dangerous-than-ever

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/05/nick-lowles-hope-not-hate-apologise-tweet-acid-attack/

• https://www.isdglobal.org/digital_dispatches/quantifying-extremism-a-data-driven-analysis-of-riot-related-far-right-telegram-networks/

Image Source

Over the past few weeks, my gut feeling has leaned towards favouring a TikTok ban in the US. This is very unlike me, as I enjoy the platform but the way it is a turbo engine for misinformation is frightening.

Let me be clear: I take no pleasure in the thought of 7,000 TikTok employees losing their jobs or seeing the 7 million small businesses who rely on the platform to thrive left without a vital tool. Still, the ongoing issues surrounding misinformation on TikTok make it impossible to ignore the risks it poses - not just in the US, but globally.

As things currently stand, TikTok seems to have narrowly escaped a full shutdown in the US, with a temporary reprieve extending its life by another 90 days. For now, the app remains unavailable on Apple and Google stores in the country.

In the wake of this ban-and-resurrection saga, misinformation thrived on TikTok itself, ironically underscoring the very issue at hand. Videos and comments flooded the platform with false claims that drove massive engagement:

• Users claimed the TikTok CEO had removed “CEO of TikTok” from his bio, supposedly signalling a crisis of confidence. In reality, his bio never included “CEO”it has always simply said “TikTok.”

• Rumours spread that Facebook had only just created its own TikTok account in response to the drama, sparking conspiracies. In truth, the account has existed for years.

• Another user claimed they were unable to unfollow TikTok’s account, when in fact they’d simply clicked on an ad by Facebook that was not connected to their actual profile.

All of these claims were easily debunked, yet they still amassed thousands of views and shares before the facts caught up. This is the heart of the issue: unchecked misinformation thrives in the ecosystem of social media, spreading faster than the truth can chase it down.

Comments Are the Silent Puppet Masters

Beyond the videos themselves, comments play a pivotal role in shaping perceptions. This isn’t just about the content of the comments, but the dynamic of social proof - the phenomenon where people look to the actions and opinions of others to guide their own decisions. Comments, likes, and shares carry weight because they seem to represent the collective wisdom of the crowd. But here’s the problem: crowds are manipulable.

We already know how this manipulation works:

• Bots amplify narratives to create the illusion of consensus.

• Unverified claims are recycled, often by well-meaning users who fail to fact-check before sharing.

• Deliberate disinformation campaigns leverage the chaos, weaponising lies to influence public opinion.

These factors combine into a mosaic of half-truths, omissions, and outright fabrications that shape how people see the world. A single false comment can nudge an undecided observer towards a conclusion, creating a ripple effect that spreads far beyond its origin.

Subscribe now

The Broader Implications for Social Media

This isn’t just a TikTok problem. The influence of platforms like TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), and Meta doesn’t stop at individual users, it bleeds into policy, governance, and societal norms. The likes of Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg have already demonstrated their willingness to meddle in these spaces, and it’s naive to assume Europe will be exempt from this influence. Expect continued pressure on EU regulators to shape policies around social media, data privacy, and content moderation in ways that favour their platforms' dominance.

As I’ve said before, those of us who work in social media and marketing have a responsibility here. We know how the platforms operate. We understand how content is amplified, how narratives are shaped, and how marketing is weaponised. To sit back and feign ignorance is a disservice to the industries we claim to uphold.

The Fragile Democracy of Social Media

At its best, social media feels like a democratised space: anyone can create a catchy video, gather thousands of views, and share their voice. Marginalised communities have used these platforms to organise, advocate, and demand change. In that sense, it feels empowering.

But let’s not forget how fragile this ecosystem is. The infrastructure of social media - the “means of culture and communication,” if you will - is controlled by a small handful of corporations. These are entities with their own agendas, profit motives, and political interests. With the flick of a switch, they can delete an account, shadowban a topic, or simply shut down an entire platform in a region. The idea of social media as an inherently democratic space crumbles under the weight of this reality.

The AI Factor: A New Era of Confusion

Meta’s decision to lean heavily on AI, including the introduction of AI-powered profiles and “creative” tools, is no small tweak. This shift compounds the risks I outlined previously around Community Notes and misinformation. Already, social media users struggle to differentiate between real content and AI-generated material. Now, with the “dead internet theory” gaining traction - suggesting platforms are being flooded with AI-generated content - it’s not hard to imagine the chaos this could bring.

Consider this: Community Notes, already prone to majority bias and manipulation, will be applied in an ecosystem increasingly shaped by synthetic content. How will users fact-check what they cannot even identify as real? This combination of AI proliferation and user-driven moderation is a recipe for amplifying disinformation at an unprecedented scale.

Source: Telegraph

Zuck vs. Europe: The Bigger Picture

It’s tempting to see Meta’s policy shifts as primarily targeting the US, where “free expression” rhetoric often holds sway. But Zuckerberg’s grievances with the European Commission - going so far as to liken their competition rules to tariffs - suggest a broader agenda. His reported push for Trump to intervene hints at a transatlantic power play, where tech regulation becomes another front in geopolitical rivalry.

This isn’t just about free speech. It’s about consolidating influence and shaping policy environments that suit Meta’s interests, often at the expense of local governance and consumer protections. The implications for global users, especially in regions with stricter content standards, cannot be overstated.

And let’s not forget, this isn’t Zuckerberg’s first rodeo. He previously took two years to take Holocaust denial claims seriously as a reason for content takedown, showcasing a long history of resistance to accountability.

Whataboutism: A Dangerous Distraction

A common refrain I’ve encountered: “But other platforms do it too.” Yes, misinformation and questionable moderation practices are not exclusive to Meta. But this isn’t a justification - it’s a distraction. Here’s why:

Meta’s reach is unparalleled. Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Threads, and Messenger collectively dwarf the user bases of other platforms. When Meta shifts policy, the ripple effects are global, shaping online discourse in ways no other company can. Instead of using whataboutism to deflect, we need to focus on the outsized responsibility Meta bears in this space.

“But We Can’t Do Anything”: Think Again

It’s easy to feel powerless in the face of a corporation as massive as Meta. But history shows that collective action works. Whether it’s boycotts, policy advocacy, or simply reallocating ad budgets, there are ways to push back:

• Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Many companies tout their CSR credentials but fail to align their ad spend with their stated values. Now is the time for businesses to walk the talk.

• Conversations and Education: Talk to peers, teams, and leadership about diversifying platforms and reducing dependency on Meta’s ecosystem.

• Platform Prioritisation: Invest in platforms with healthier community dynamics and stronger moderation policies.

The Human Cost

Beyond the technical and financial ramifications lies a deeply human impact. The changes to Meta’s hateful content guidelines - allowing users to refer to transgender people as “it” or allege mental illness based on gender or sexual orientation - are abhorrent. Framing these policies as “free expression” ignores the harm they inflict on marginalised communities.

We are watching a platform that reaches billions dismantle safeguards against hate and misinformation while outsourcing accountability to users. This isn’t freedom; it’s abdication.

The Power of Small Shifts

Let’s be realistic: not every company will immediately cut ties with Meta. But even incremental changes, a shifted budget here, a public statement there, can signal that unchecked power has consequences. We need to ask more of ourselves, our companies, and our platforms. It starts with rejecting complacency and choosing action over apathy.

Zuckerberg may see this as a “new chapter,” but we have a say in how this story unfolds. Let’s make it one that prioritises people over profits and principles over passivity.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has not only just donated $1m (£786,000) to an inauguration fund for President-elect Donald Trump (source). Earlier this week, on January 7th, 2025, Mark Zuckerberg also announced:

He also mentioned ‘similar to X’ in his video. This alignment with X's approach is deeply concerning and raises significant red flags.

Image source: NDTV

Now is the moment for brands to prove their values rather than just talk about them. The step back from X by brands has shown that brands CAN indeed make value based decisions BUT the advertising budgets spent on Meta will be massively different kettle of fish in comparison to X. AND I’ve seen enough corporations that talk the talk, and don’t do the actual walk when it comes to the values they’re trying so hard to portray as being lived at their companies. Anyways, first things first…

WHY ARE THESE DEVELOPMENTS AT META DANGEROUS?

These developments entail several potential risks as they fundamentally alter how content is moderated and evaluated on these platforms. Here are the key concerns:

Abolishing fact-checks in favour of Community Notes: Community Notes, as seen on X, have demonstrated significant limitations in effectively curbing the spread of misinformation. Studies reveal that they are often neither timely nor widely applied. With the community determining which notes are visible, there’s a danger of a "majority bias," leaving the platform vulnerable to groupthink, political polarisation and manipulation.

Simplifying content guidelines: Reducing guidelines, particularly in sensitive areas like migration and gender identity, could pave the way for hate speech and discrimination. While framed as promoting “freedom of expression,” this move may leave marginalised groups more vulnerable to attacks without sufficient moderation safeguards.

Loosening automated content filters: Shifting content filters to focus solely on illegal violations removes protection from harmful content like doxxing, bullying, or hate speech, putting the onus on users to report such incidents. This reactive approach is ineffective, especially if platforms fail to act swiftly, leaving many users unprotected.

Relocating Trust and Moderation Teams to Texas: Moving from California to Texas may signal political motivations, as Texas, in contrast to California, is less regulated and more conservative. This shift could create the perception that the platform is ideologically aligned rather than neutral and globally inclusive.

SO WHY SHOULD MARKETERS CARE?

Marketers carry a significant responsibility to ensure that their channels and content do not become part of these problematic dynamics. (P.S. they almost certainly already are!).
Changes like the removal of fact-checks in favour of Community Notes have serious consequences.

For context:
1) According to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, posts containing misinformation on X garnered over 2 billion views last year alone. Experts have already linked this deluge of misinformation to influencing election results in key swing states. This seems to be the "successful" model now being replicated.

2) These changes also open the door for bots and click farms to manipulate Community Notes. This could mean that legitimate Community Notes get downvoted and never surface. And that misinformation gains more visibility under the guise of 'community endorsement,' bypassing fact-checking altogether.

In light of these developments, marketers must act proactively and take their responsibility seriously:

1. Monitor Meta developments and advocate for change.
   Monitor on-going developments with Meta, it is important to put pressure on Zuckerberg, boycotts have worked before.

2. Strengthen internal and external community management.

   • Promote Awareness: Where suitable actively educate users about misinformation while fostering a positive and informed community culture.

   • External Community Management: Be careful of what type of posts you interact with – ensure they are factually correct and don’t play into more misinformation on the internet.

3. React swiftly to crises involving misinformation.
   Develop a clear plan for how the brand should react if it becomes associated with misinformation.

4. Clearly communicate the brand’s position on contentious issues.
   Issue clear statements on platform changes or societal issues if they conflict with the brand’s values. Inform the community about how the brand is addressing problematic developments and the steps it is taking.

5. Contribute to community notes!

These changes have the potential to undermine protections against misinformation, hate speech, and harassment. They could make the platforms and the world an even less safe place, particularly for marginalised groups, while eroding trust in moderation mechanisms. Additionally, the tilt towards politically motivated decisions risks compromising the platform's role as a neutral space for discourse. This is not a time for passivity, it’s a time for action.

GERMAN VERSION

Meta wendet sich von den Fakten ab, wird Ihre Marke Haltung zeigen?

Zuckerberg schließt das Faktencheck-Programm bei Meta ab – Marken müssen sich entscheiden, ob sie Gewinne oder Prinzipien in den Vordergrund stellen.

Wenn Zuckerbergs Ankündigung wie ein Musk-inspiriertes Spielbuch wirkt, dann liegt das vermutlich daran, dass es genau das ist.

Meta, das Mutterunternehmen von Facebook und Instagram, hat kürzlich nicht nur 1 Million US-Dollar (786.000 £) an einen Inaugurationsfonds für den designierten US-Präsidenten Donald Trump gespendet (Quelle). Am Dienstag, den 7. Januar 2025, verkündete Mark Zuckerberg zudem:

„Es ist Zeit, zu unseren Wurzeln der freien Meinungsäußerung zurückzukehren. Wir ersetzen Faktenchecker durch Community Notes, vereinfachen unsere Richtlinien und konzentrieren uns darauf, Fehler zu reduzieren. Ich freue mich auf dieses nächste Kapitel.“

In seinem Video erwähnte er zudem, dass dies „ähnlich wie bei X“ sein wird. Diese Ausrichtung an X ist äußerst besorgniserregend und wirft zahlreiche rote Flaggen auf.

Jetzt ist der Moment gekommen, an dem Marken ihre Werte unter Beweis stellen müssen, anstatt nur darüber zu reden. Der Rückzug von Marken aus X hat gezeigt, dass sie durchaus wertebasierte Entscheidungen treffen können. Doch die Werbebudgets, die bei Meta im Spiel sind, sind eine ganz andere Hausnummer als bei X. Und ich habe genug Unternehmen gesehen, die schöne Worte machen, aber nicht den Taten folgen lassen, wenn es um die Werte geht, die sie angeblich leben. Aber eines nach dem anderen …

WARUM SIND DIESE ENTWICKLUNGEN BEI META GEFÄHRLICH?

Diese Entwicklungen bergen mehrere Risiken, da sie die Art und Weise, wie Inhalte auf diesen Plattformen moderiert und bewertet werden, grundlegend verändern. Hier sind die zentralen Bedenken:

1. Abschaffung der Faktenchecks zugunsten von Community Notes:
   Community Notes, wie man sie von X kennt, haben deutliche Schwächen gezeigt, wenn es darum geht, die Verbreitung von Fehlinformationen effektiv einzudämmen. Studien zeigen, dass sie oft weder rechtzeitig noch in ausreichendem Maße eingesetzt werden. Wenn die Community entscheidet, welche Notizen sichtbar werden, besteht die Gefahr eines „Mehrheitsirrtums“, was die Plattform anfällig für Gruppendenken, politische Polarisierung und Manipulation macht.

2. Vereinfachung der Inhaltsrichtlinien:
   Die Reduzierung der Richtlinien, insbesondere in sensiblen Bereichen wie Migration und Geschlechtsidentität, könnte Hassrede und Diskriminierung fördern. Während dies als Förderung der „freien Meinungsäußerung“ dargestellt wird, könnten marginalisierte Gruppen stärker Angriffen ausgesetzt sein, ohne ausreichenden Schutz durch Moderation.

3. Gelockerte automatisierte Contentfilter:
   Die Konzentration der Filter auf ausschließlich illegale Verstöße entfernt den Schutz vor problematischen Inhalten wie Doxxing, Mobbing oder Hassrede. Die Verantwortung, solche Inhalte zu melden, wird den Nutzer:innen überlassen. Dieser reaktive Ansatz ist ineffektiv, insbesondere wenn Plattformen nicht schnell reagieren, was viele Nutzer:innen ungeschützt lässt.

4. Verlagerung der Trust- und Moderationsteams nach Texas:
   Der Umzug von Kalifornien nach Texas könnte politische Motive signalisieren, da Texas im Gegensatz zu Kalifornien weniger reguliert und konservativer ist. Dieser Schritt könnte den Eindruck erwecken, dass die Plattform ideologisch ausgerichtet ist, anstatt neutral und global inklusiv zu agieren.

WARUM SOLLTEN MARKETER DARAUF ACHTEN?

Marketer tragen eine erhebliche Verantwortung, sicherzustellen, dass ihre Kanäle und Inhalte nicht Teil dieser problematischen Dynamiken werden (Spoiler: Sie sind es wahrscheinlich bereits!). Änderungen wie die Abschaffung der Faktenchecks zugunsten von Community Notes haben schwerwiegende Konsequenzen.

Zum Kontext:

1. Laut dem Center for Countering Digital Hate erzielten Beiträge mit Fehlinformationen auf X im letzten Jahr über 2 Milliarden Aufrufe. Expert:innen haben diese Flut an Fehlinformationen bereits mit der Beeinflussung von Wahlergebnissen in entscheidenden Swing States in Verbindung gebracht. Dieses "erfolgreiche" Modell scheint nun repliziert zu werden.

2. Diese Änderungen öffnen auch die Tür für Manipulation durch Bots und Klickfarmen. Das könnte dazu führen, dass legitime Community Notes heruntergewählt und nie angezeigt werden, während Fehlinformationen unter dem Deckmantel der „Community-Bestätigung“ sichtbarer werden und die Faktenprüfung komplett umgehen.

WAS MÜSSEN MARKETER TUN?

Angesichts dieser Entwicklungen müssen Marketer proaktiv handeln und ihre Verantwortung ernst nehmen:

• Entwicklungen bei Meta überwachen und für Veränderungen eintreten: Boykotte haben in der Vergangenheit bereits Wirkung gezeigt.

• Interne und externe Community-Management-Strategien stärken.

• Bewusstsein fördern: Nutzer:innen über Fehlinformationen aufklären und eine positive sowie informierte Community-Kultur fördern.

• Krisenmanagement etablieren: Einen klaren Plan entwickeln, wie die Marke reagieren sollte, falls sie mit Fehlinformationen in Verbindung gebracht wird.

• Klare Markenpositionierung: Stellung zu Plattformänderungen oder gesellschaftlichen Themen beziehen, die im Widerspruch zu den Werten der Marke stehen. Die Community darüber informieren, wie die Marke auf problematische Entwicklungen reagiert und welche Schritte unternommen werden.

• Zu Community Notes beitragen: Sicherstellen, dass diese Verantwortung proaktiv und faktenbasiert wahrgenommen wird.

Diese Änderungen gefährden den Schutz vor Fehlinformationen, Hassrede und Belästigung. Sie könnten Plattformen und die Welt zu einem noch unsichereren Ort machen, insbesondere für marginalisierte Gruppen, und das Vertrauen in Moderationsmechanismen weiter untergraben. Darüber hinaus droht eine politisch motivierte Ausrichtung der Plattform, die ihre Rolle als neutraler Raum für Diskurse kompromittiert. Dies ist keine Zeit für Passivität – es ist Zeit zu handeln.

4o

Before Christmas I mentioned to my partner that I would really like this one specific reusable green Waitrose bag. The bag isn’t anything special. I’m not a Waitrose shopper, and have no strong opinions about it. Other than that the store in Kings Cross occasionally sells chives plants, which is a rare thing across the shops in London I ‘frequent’. In my opinion the shop isn’t better or worse than any other supermarket.

I realise, however, just a few days later at a Christmas dinner that I’m very alone with this opinion. Turns out, people have strong opinions about where they shop. They go into great detail about why one store's products are superior to another’s. Waitrose was a frequent favourite at the table - I honestly do not taste a difference to the respective Sainsbury’s item.

So, why the sudden need for a green Waitrose bag? There shouldn’t be a reason for me wanting to own one of these green bags, I don’t have strong opinions on Waitrose, I don’t shop there regularly, heck it’s not even close to my home or my work. Yet here I am, eyeing this bag that you can buy online for just £2, and probably in-store as well.

So, I’m trying to come to a summary of all the signals that may have led to my desire for the item. Here’s what comes to mind:

1. Brat Green

2. Baggu (and Sandy Liang)

3. Fits right into the Housewives of Clapton aesthetic

4. Seeing other stylish women carry it like an accessory (social proof) IRL

Edited version of this RHOC IG Post

Brat Green - fair this has been the colour of the summer, and I’m aware the colour of the bag isn’t actually brat green, but I saw myself choosing green accessories over the past year or so - from socks, handbags to cravats.

Baggu (and Sandy Liang) - Baggu is one of these brands you will have come across for certain if you spent some time on TikTok, specifically around their brand partnership with Sandy Liang (the bow trend started in 2023). Arguably the Waitrose £2 bag looks just like on of the reusable baggu versions for $14 a pop.

Real Housewives of Clapton Aesthetic - I can’t help but see an alignment between the Perello eating, Lime bike riding, sight-hound owning audience of RHOC. They certainly would shop at Waitrose, and see it as a statement

Social Proof IRL - I’ve seen other stylish women carry it around like it’s part of their outfit, not just a bag for carrying groceries.

Why it would be clever for Waitrose to collab with Baggu

So, here's a thought: what if Waitrose decided to align themselves with Baggu? At first glance, it might seem a bit left-field for a supermarket, but hear me out, there's a real opportunity here. Baggu isn't just any reusable bag company; it's a brand that's nailed its market and is making waves, especially among Gen Z.

Baggu's vibe is all about sustainability, quality, and style. Founded in 2007 by Emily Sugihara, Baggu filled a gap in the market for eco-friendly bags that didn't sacrifice aesthetics for ethics.

Now, let's talk demographics. Baggu's audience skews heavily towards women, with 79.48% female users, and the largest age group is the 25 - 34-year-olds, prime Gen Z / Millenial territory. They're reaching an audience that's not only fashion-conscious but also deeply invested in sustainability. This is the kind of shopper who appreciates quality and is willing to advocate for brands that reflect their values.

This partnership could also leverage the ‘What’s In My Baggu’ trend on TikTok, where people show what they carry in their Baggus, often showcasing the brand's functionality and style. Waitrose could gain visibility in these viral moments, associating their very own products with a trendy and sustainable lifestyle.

So maybe there’s more to this bag than its utility. It seems to weave itself into the fabric of a trend, subtly signaling that you’re part of a certain tribe. It’s a simple piece, but in its simplicity, there’s something quietly compelling.

Sources:

• RHOC /

• Waitrose Stripe Core Pouch Bag

• Similarweb

You may wonder why (you definitely aren’t! I know!).

Despite not having seen the movie, I admire the multifaceted world that was built around the Spice Girls, their characters, and personalities. I don’t want to limit myself to a niche yet. Think pop culture, work, maybe some personal stories, books etc. - a stream of consciousness and experimentation will be the guiding principles here.

For how long? We'll see.

Thanks for tuning in!


* GERMAN VERSION * DEUTSCHE VERSION * GERMAN VERSION * DEUTSCHE VERSION

Das fühlt sich sehr nach 2010 an, oder? Leider habe ich den Großteil meiner Programmierkenntnisse vergessen, und der Substack sieht noch nicht ganz so aus, wie ich es mir wünsche. Erwarte, dass sich hier noch Dinge ändern werden. Vorerst lasse ich mich von den Spice Girls inspirieren!

Vielleicht fragst du dich, warum (obwohl du das sicher nicht tust! Ich weiß!).

Obwohl ich den Film nicht gesehen habe, bewundere ich die facettenreiche Welt, die um die Spice Girls, ihre Charaktere und Persönlichkeiten aufgebaut wurde. Ich möchte mich noch nicht auf eine Nische festlegen. Denke an Popkultur, Arbeit, vielleicht einige persönliche Geschichten, Bücher usw. - ein Strom des Bewusstseins und Experimentieren werden hier die Leitprinzipien sein.

Wie lange? Das wird sich zeigen.

Danke, fürs eingeschalten!