SOCIAL MEDIA
A misleading caption, a manipulated image or an impersonation account can gather momentum before verification has even begun. By the time an organisation issues a response, the narrative may already be entrenched in public consciousness.
Social media has altered not only how we communicate but also how quickly perceptions harden into belief.
BEWARE OF FAKE NARRATIVES
Fazmina Imamudeen notes how misinformation and virality are reshaping trust
Extensive research has shown that false information spreads faster online than accurate reporting. Content that evokes surprise, outrage or fear generates stronger engagement, which is the metric that determines visibility on most platforms.
Algorithms are designed to maximise interaction rather than evaluate truth. As a result, emotionally charged misinformation often outperforms careful explanation.
The rise of deepfakes has raised the stakes considerably. AI tools can now generate convincing video, audio and images that appear authentic to the untrained eye.
What makes this especially dangerous is not only the ability to fabricate events but also the speed at which such content can circulate before verification mechanisms can respond. A manipulated clip suggesting misconduct or an inflammatory remark can gain traction within minutes, and shape perception before forensic analysis intervenes.
At the same time, the mere existence of deepfake technology creates a secondary erosion of trust. Genuine footage can be dismissed as fabricated so that bad actors can deny accountability. In this environment, trust becomes fragile not only since falsehoods spread but also because authenticity itself is questioned.
This dynamic isn’t abstract in Sri Lanka.
Monitoring organisations and investigative journalists have documented coordinated misinformation and harassment campaigns targeting women politicians and minority communities.
Reports by the Centre for Investigative Reporting Sri Lanka (CIR) detail the circulation of manipulated images, defamatory claims and impersonation accounts that were widely shared before being challenged. Misleading narratives exposed individuals to reputational harm and sustained online abuse.
These incidents illustrate how misinformation often operates. It rarely presents itself as an obvious fabrication; instead, it appears as an edited photograph stripped of context, a caption that implies wrongdoing without evidence or an account that mimics a legitimate voice closely enough to appear credible. Once shared at scale, such content shapes public perceptions, regardless of its accuracy.
The implications for businesses can also be dangerous. Brand value depends heavily on trust, which is influenced by what audiences encounter in their feeds. A false allegation about corporate conduct, financial stability or executive behaviour can trigger anxiety among stakeholders – even if it’s subsequently disproven.
Research consistently indicates that corrections travel less widely than the original misleading claim and therefore, the initial impression often lingers.
The structure of social media intensifies this vulnerability. Platforms reward content that generates rapid reaction. Posts that provoke strong emotions are more likely to be prioritised, which creates an environment where dramatic or inflammatory narratives gain disproportionate visibility. And measured evidence based communication competes at a structural disadvantage.
And user behaviour accelerates the cycle.
Many individuals share content without verifying its source or reading beyond the headline. Posts that align with existing beliefs are amplified quickly, reinforcing echo chambers and increasing the reach of misleading material.
In such an ecosystem, misinformation spreads not only through deliberate manipulation but also by way of impulsive participation.
Sri Lanka’s introduction of the Online Safety Act reflects recognition that online narratives can have tangible consequences. Policy makers and civil society groups have acknowledged that misinformation contributes to reputational damage, social division and erosion of trust in institutions.
So the regulatory response signals that digital harm is no longer viewed as separate from real world impact.
In an environment where virality often precedes verification, credibility becomes a competitive advantage. The brands that endure won’t be those that chase every trend but those that protect the integrity of their voice.
This content is available for subscribers only.
