Lie, Misinform, Disinform: Same Mess, Different Intent
[Tone: Direct, Informative]
Non-Typical Take
The “alpha male” myth is junk science in a leather jacket. It wandered out of a wolf enclosure, was misinterpreted as a universal law, and now appears in podcasts selling $999 “dominance protocols.” Some folks repeat it because they think it’s true (misinformation). Some package it because it sells (disinformation). A few will make stuff up to keep the grift alive (lying). For the record, wolf-pack “alphas” came from captive wolf studies; field research reframed wild packs as family units—and the scientist most associated with “alpha” publicly corrected the record.
Lying - saying what you believe is false, on purpose, so someone believes it. Intent to deceive is the point.
Misinformation - False or misleading info shared without the goal of deceiving. Wrong, not wicked.
Disinformation - False information is engineered and spread to mislead, often in a coordinated and strategic manner. (Security folk discuss it alongside “malinformation,” true content weaponized out of context)
“Intent” is the main character.
Philosophers define a lie by the speaker’s belief and purpose: a statement believed false, told with the intention that others accept it as accurate. That intent line is what separates an honest mistake (misinformation) from a strategic con (disinformation).
If it’s a LIE (knowingly false, on purpose)
“On my way” - that text you send while yo ass is still in the shower or putting clothes on.
Intent: make them believe a false thing so you don’t look late. (You're already late, ha)
Reality show confessionals: “I’m not here to build my brand,” says the contestant who arrived with a ring light and a pre-scheduled merch drop.
Intent: audience buy-in for a false image.
Music friend fib: “I listened to your whole mixtape…fire,” but their player shows 0:37 total.
Intent: flatter you with a lie.
If it’s MISINFORMATION (wrong, not wicked)
NBA rumor mill: A blogger mishears “interest” as “agreement,” posts it, and fans repeat it.
Intent: share a scoop that turns out false.
Lyric lore: A fan confidently misquotes a bar, and the misquote becomes canon in comment sections.
Intent: celebrate the song, not deceive.
Auntie’s health tip: Forwarding “boil lemons to cure the flu.” She believes it; it’s just wrong.
Intent: help, not mislead.
If it’s DISINFORMATION (engineered falsehood, strategic)
Edited rage bait: A clipped video removes context to make a public figure look unhinged, boosted by a network of burner accounts.
Intent: inflame emotion to drive a narrative.
Bot-amplified culture war: A campaign seeds polarizing claims across pages and comment farms to fracture a community.
Intent: divide and mobilize.
Fake headline screenshot: A fabricated “breaking news” image styled like a major outlet drops right before an election.
Intent: sway votes with a manufactured claim.
Quick gut check:
False + careless → probably misinformation.
False + purposeful → disinformation.
Knowingly false + direct → lying.
The pop-culture primer (Scooby-Doo edition)
Lying is the villain saying, “No ghosts here,” while holding a fog machine.
Misinformation is Shaggy repeating a rumor he believes.
Disinformation is Old Man Jenkins funding a fake “ghost sightings” page, buying bots, and seeding edited clips to tank property values.
Same spooky vibes. Completely different motives.
How it spreads (and why your For-You page stays chaotic)
Platforms optimize for attention, not accuracy. Novelty and emotion rocket-boost engagement, so engineered falsehoods are designed to be novel and emotional. During outbreaks or elections, volume often overwhelms verification, making the feed fertile ground for misinformation. Your feed is a damn “reality-TV producer.” It casts drama, edits out context, and pushes the wildest clip to primetime. In that environment, false stories don’t just travel, they sprint. An extensive, multi-year analysis of ~126,000 rumor cascades on Twitter found that false news consistently went farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than true stories, with the effect most substantial in politics. Translation: the mess scales by design, and humans, not just bots, are the ones hitting “share.”
Emotion is the rocket fuel. Media that triggers high-arousal feelings—awe, anger, anxiety- gets shared more than low-arousal feelings like sadness. That’s why outrage clips, victory laps, and shockers dominate the lane while sober corrections get boxed out. The dynamic isn’t just about positive vs. negative; it’s about how activated you feel after watching, which is precisely what engagement-tuned feeds reward.
Repetition then rewires “truth.” See a claim enough times—screenshots of screenshots, quote-tweets, duets—and it starts to feel accurate even when you already know it’s false. Psychologists call this the illusory truth effect, and it’s a big reason recycled myths keep regaining traction after every debunk. The algorithm doesn’t need you to believe instantly; it just requires you to reencounter it (and again).
Design nudges can help at the margins. When Twitter/X tested the “read before you retweet” prompt, people opened articles ~40% more often and sometimes decided not to share after reading—proof that a tiny speed bump can de-gaslight a timeline. Closed-channel tweaks matter too: when WhatsApp limited “highly forwarded” messages to a single chat, the platform reported a 70% drop in those viral forwards, showing that friction can blunt momentum even where content is private.
Labels and fact-checks help, but they’re not seatbelts on a car doing 120 mph. Crowd-notes and warnings can reduce belief or engagement in some contexts, yet they also risk an “implied truth” problem: if only some false posts get tagged, people may infer that untagged falsehoods are legit. And when labels arrive late, they miss the most viral window entirely. Net-net: practical tools, mixed results, so don’t outsource your skepticism.
The Point, Not the Pointing
If there’s a through-line here, it’s intent. Lies are solo acts, misinformation is a fumble, disinformation is a playbook, and your feed loves all three because drama pays better than diligence. So run the Intent Test before you boost anything: clarify the claim, check the source, clock the motive, ask for or look for evidence.
Correct misinfo with grace, report the engineered stuff, and call a lie a lie. And about that “alpha male” cameo—we’re not letting a bad wolf metaphor headline the human story. Retire the costume, chase prestige over posturing, and be the person in the group chat who makes things clearer, not louder. If we do that, the For-You page stops treating us like extras in someone else’s outrage arc and starts looking a little more like reality, in other words, less cosplay, more credibility.
SWIRV. 🖖🏽
V.