The changing nature of Information Consumption

Content consumption in a networked, platform-oriented media landscape has upended centuries of establishment, shifting how information is shared and passed down the chain. Communications infrastructure has constantly changed how we engage with and who holds the power to shape the information shared. Print publishing opened a new agency for private institutions to disseminate en-mass, the telegraph pushed the speed and reach for imperial powers to claim authority over and control new territory, and broadcast media of radio, then television, created a one-to-many dynamic for governments and advertisers to their public. Through these changes over the last 200 years, institutions of power—not individuals—held the reins of the information system. Professionals, from propagandists to utopian investigative journalists, audited the flow; gatekeepers bearing witness to the world and relaying it to citizens of the public sphere.

However, surveys show that citizens are turning to the internet and social media platforms for information. Pew Research surveys (2022-2024) show a rise in US adults often consuming news on social media from 17% to 25% while print and broadcast showed a slight decrease. News Platform Fact Sheet, Fact Sheet, Pew Research Center, 2024. Social media democratizes broadcast, affording every user a platform to create and share their own content while connecting to others. While users and content creators feel like we are the new gatekeepers, gatekeeping now operates through several levels of logic with their own motivations. Karlsson et al. introduce three parallel domains: the logic of publishing (traditional news media), the logic of sharing (public engagement), and the logic of spreading (algorithmic spread). M. Karlsson, E. V. Couvering, and J. Lindell, Publishing, sharing, and spreading online news: A case study of gatekeeping logics in the platform era, Nordicom Review 43, (2022). This framework clarifies how information is brought into view, boosted by engagement, and disseminated respectively. Each domain is motivated by different aims: publishing desires impact and reach, sharing facilitates relationships and social mediation, and the algorithms seeks engagement for advertisers. There is no longer a line of professionals in control of the flow, but instead consumers and content creators join the ranks of traditional gatekeepers.

The failure of systemic safeguards

With this framework in mind, it is clear that social media platforms have failed in protecting the user from misinformation and that each actor can benefit from letting it slide.

Early responses from internet platforms aim to protect users by implementing systemic safeguards—account authentication, terms of use, deplatforming, and passive community notes. While these barriers all attempt to curb misinformation, all but the last can be bypassed by bot accounts and raise concerns over freedom of speech. Community notes instead take the route of democratizing fact-checking by arming teams of community experts to annotate content rather than limiting speech. This technique shows promise, however lacks in practice. It was found that community notes on X (formerly twitter) through 2022-2023 took on average 75.5 hours to appear, allowing posts to accumulate 96.7% of its reposts before correction. Y. Chuai, M. Pilarski, G. Lenzini, and N. Pröllochs, Community Notes Reduce the Spread of Misleading Posts on X. Emotionally charged, and influencer content often gain enough traction that, by the time notes are placed, misinformation has already been shared to other platforms or spread through the algorithm, undermining content creators promoting truthful discourse.

Though systemic safeguards check the policy boxes of tech giants, they fail to balance free speech and truthful information effectively. How can we expect an information system, guided by the logic of spreading, to also adopt safeguards—antithetical to the profit and engagement incentive? The responsibility must fall on us, the content creators. Not just to contrast misinformation, but constantly evaluate how we bear this responsibility beyond the average digital citizen.

Digital Citizenry and the role of content creators

Creating informed digital citizens is a recent priority in public education, equipping new internet users with tools for digital literacy--vetting sources, identifying bias, and engaging responsibly. However, as misinformation evolves, so must our practices be constantly updated. Content creators, positioned with privilege within the logic of sharing, hold a unique role in modelling and advocating for verification and literacy.

Unlike traditional gatekeepers, content creators operate without institutional oversight or formal training, navigating an algorithm-driven landscape. They must balance platform incentives to gain engagement with responsible public discourse. The logic of sharing outlines how the public (including creators) chose how to engage with content and considers the content of the message as well as how it reflects on their relationships. Studies show that these digital exchanges are used to maintain social relationships and project personal identity I. Picone, R. De Wolf, and S. Robijt, “Who Shares What with Whom and Why?: News sharing profiles amongst Flemish news users,” Digital Journalism 4(7), 921–932 (2016). as much as they are about the information themselves. “Although most social media users do not create misinformation” in the process of maintaining relationships, “they engage with it by reposting, retweeting, and replying, which can spread and amplify it”. M. Tully, L. Bode, and E.K. Vraga, “Mobilizing Users: Does Exposure to Misinformation and Its Correction Affect Users’ Responses to a Health Misinformation Post?,” Social Media + Society 6(4), (2020). Content creators should recognize their role within these networked relationships--modelling digital literacy, engaging in discourse, and introducing users with verification tools.

Upholding information integrity as a content creator

These methods produce real effects. Tully et al. found in 2020 that although 73% of users prefer to ignore misinformation, E.C. Tandoc Jr, D. Lim, and R. Ling, “Diffusion of disinformation: How social media users respond to fake news and why,” Journalism 21(3), 381–398 (2020). exposure to corrections make users 16.7% more likely to rebuke misinformation. Seeing corrections normalizes critical engagement, showing that others are doing it too. Addressing misinformation requires working within the logic of sharing--intentional counteracting falsehoods through social relationships between users and content creators. That is what it means to bear witness in digital platforms: fostering discourse that explores how and why, rather than gatekeeping and relaying information.

That being said, content creators remain at the mercy of algorithms. To step outside established platforms and curate their own contend under the POSSE framework would be freeing, however demands too much for most users. Instead, creators must balance accuracy and creating engaging stories, a trial-and-error process that risks their standing within the attention economy. One solution I see is a united collective effort to shift while sharing tactics and the results of their practices. I call on creators to leverage tools afforded by our digital infrastructure: hyperlink information, summarize context encourage deeper research, timestamp sources, note post-production edits, correct misinformation, and facilitate dialogue.

Conclusion

It is clear that the systemic safeguards have failed, and education alone cant keep up with algorithmic, attention-driven platforms. The fight falls to the end-user, and content creators must champion digital literacy and the modern tools needed to sustain it. The effectiveness of criticality and literacy rely on constant practice, learning, and most importantly action.

I leave with this analogy. Our current platformed infrastructure is a sea of social discourse, where misinformation spins up vortices of sensationalism. Left unchecked, they grow into maelstroms that obfuscate and destroy productive dialogue. Yet it takes only a few creators speaking up to weaken the flow--disturbing the vortex enough for the smaller waves in the ocean to restore clarity.