Three words, three different situations
News coverage and everyday conversation often use “misinformation,” “disinformation” and “rumor” as if they were the same. They overlap, but the differences are useful, because they shape how you respond.
Misinformation is false or misleading information shared without an intent to deceive. The person passing it on believes it, or at least has not checked. A relative who forwards an outdated safety warning, or a user who shares a photo from the wrong event, is usually spreading misinformation.
Disinformation is false or misleading information shared deliberately, to deceive or to cause some effect. The key element is intent: the originator knows, or is indifferent to the fact, that the content is false or distorted, and spreads it for a purpose such as influence, profit or disruption.
A rumor is an unverified claim passing from person to person. A rumor may turn out to be true, false or partly true. What defines it is that it has not been confirmed, not that it is wrong. Rumors tend to grow when people are anxious, when official information is slow or absent, and when the topic matters to them.
Why intent matters
Intent matters for a few practical reasons.
First, it affects how you treat the person. If your aunt shares a mistaken claim, a gentle correction is usually appropriate and often effective. If an account is deliberately seeding falsehoods, polite correction in its replies will probably not change its behavior, and reporting it to the service, or simply not amplifying it, may be more sensible.
Second, it affects what remedies make sense. Honest mistakes respond to better information and habits: checking before sharing, and clear corrections. Deliberate campaigns may call for action by platforms, publishers, researchers or, in some places, regulators.
Third, it helps avoid unfair accusations. Calling an ordinary mistake “disinformation” implies a plot where there was none, and can make people defensive. It is also hard to see intent from the outside. In many cases, you cannot know whether someone was lying or mistaken, so it is often more accurate to say that a claim is “false” or “misleading” and leave the motive unstated unless there is good evidence.
The same post can move between categories
A single piece of content can change status as it travels. Imagine, hypothetically, that someone invents a story to provoke anger. That original act is disinformation. Thousands of people who believe it and pass it on are spreading misinformation. Meanwhile, others discuss it as a rumor, unsure what to believe. The same words are present throughout; what changes is who is sharing them and why.
This is one reason the line is blurry in practice, and why careful writers describe what they can observe rather than guessing at hidden motives.
What “coordinated” adds
Coordinated disinformation refers to deliberate efforts in which multiple accounts, groups or channels work together to spread a false or misleading message, often to make it look more popular or more organic than it really is. The coordination might involve:
- networks of fake or purchased accounts that amplify the same message;
- many posts using near-identical wording at about the same time;
- real people recruited or paid to post a scripted message;
- impersonating a group of ordinary citizens or a respected organization.
Coordination can also be used for ordinary, honest purposes: a charity asking supporters to share a campaign is a form of organized messaging. The line that matters is deception, such as pretending to be independent voices or presenting false information as true.
Spotting coordination from the outside is difficult, and researchers themselves are cautious about labeling it. Signs that may be worth noticing include accounts that are new, that post at unusual rates, that share the same unusual phrases, or that seem to exist only to push one theme. None of these is proof alone, and genuine communities also repeat each other’s slogans. It’s wise to hold such judgments lightly. The related topic of hidden persuasion shows how paid or arranged messaging can look like ordinary opinion.
Other terms you may meet
- Malinformation is sometimes used for genuine information shared with the intent to harm, such as publishing private details. Not everyone uses this term.
- Propaganda usually means messaging designed to promote a cause or viewpoint, often selective in the facts it presents. It need not be entirely false.
- Hoaxes are deliberate fabrications presented as real, and satire is a different matter again, since it is not meant to deceive.
- Conspiracy theories are explanations that attribute events to secret plots, often unfalsifiable, and which can be held sincerely.
Definitions vary between researchers, journalists and institutions, so it is worth checking how a given source is using a word.
Responding sensibly
- Describe, don’t diagnose. Say “this claim is inaccurate, and here is the source” rather than “you are spreading propaganda.”
- Correct kindly where there was likely no bad intent, and keep corrections short and specific.
- Do not amplify deliberate falsehoods by reposting them just to mock them; describe them in your own words instead.
- Report clear deception or impersonation through the service’s tools where they exist.
- Think about your own role. Most of us have been the middle link in a chain of misinformation at some point.
Language will not solve the problem, but precise terms help us think clearly about what is going on, and respond in proportion.