Kate Starbird, a professor at the University of Washington and co-founder of the Center for an Informed Public, has dedicated her career to understanding how online information ecosystems shape modern discourse. Originally focused on “crisis informatics”—specifically how digital platforms facilitate pro-social behavior during disasters—Starbird’s research evolved significantly after the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. She observed how decentralized crowds, often well-intentioned, rapidly coalesced around false information, ultimately creating a phenomenon she identifies as “participatory disinformation.” This process occurs when ordinary users, rather than just top-down actors, interpret, remix, and amplify misleading narratives, effectively blurring the lines between audience and active participant in the information cycle.
The modern landscape of disinformation has shifted from accidental rumors during crises to calculated, programmatic exploitation. Starbird highlights that since 2016, disinformation has moved from purely top-down campaigns, such as those orchestrated by foreign state actors, to a horizontal and bottom-up model. Today, online influencers and hyper-partisan networks rely on an “improv theater” style of communication, where narratives are co-created with audiences. By seeding ideas and soliciting feedback from followers, influencers empower their base, making them feel like active agents in the political process. As this model matures, it creates an environment where truth becomes secondary to rhetorical utility, a concept Starbird associates with “bullshitting”—an intentional disregard for accuracy in favor of political or personal advantage.
A significant portion of Starbird’s analysis concerns how these dynamics have been hyper-leveraged, particularly by the American political right. She argues that while the left remains heavily reliant on traditional, mainstream media frameworks, the right has invested in a sophisticated, alternative ecosystem of podcasts, influencers, and social media networks. This ecosystem is uniquely adapted to the logic of the internet, allowing for rapid, improvisational messaging that feeds off audience participation. The danger, Starbird warns, is that this feedback loop can spin out of control, with audiences occasionally radicalizing their own leaders, forcing them to adopt even more extreme positions to remain relevant within the movement.
Furthermore, Starbird addresses the evolution of public perception regarding censorship. Following the January 6th Capitol riot, as platforms began to scale back on disinformation through trust and safety teams, a counter-narrative emerged. Conservative strategists successfully reframed these content-moderation efforts as “censorship,” effectively shifting the focus from the dangers of the insurrection itself to the alleged persecution of free speech. This narrative transition has been highly effective, enabling political actors to smear research institutions and academics as “censors.” Starbird observes that this pattern creates a dangerous irony: while current political figures frequently attack the legitimacy of independent research and fact-checking, they have simultaneously employed state power to suppress opposing voices, all while maintaining the guise of fighting against oppression.
This climate of hostility toward investigative work has created a paradox for experts. Despite an urgent need for research into how artificial intelligence and information systems are being manipulated, scholars like Starbird face increasing scrutiny, including professional defunding and aggressive legislative interrogations. This systematic pushback is not incidental; it is a strategic effort by those wielding disinformation to maintain their advantage by preventing the public from understanding the mechanics of their manipulation. Starbird emphasizes that the current landscape is increasingly dominated by propaganda that travels seamlessly across borders, making the development of new information literacies and transparent technological solutions more critical than ever for the health of democratic discourse.
Ultimately, Starbird views the current state of digital discourse as a pivotal moment for democracy. The combination of, foreign influence operations, domestic political “bullshitting,” and an increasingly partisan media structure has created a crisis of perception. By framing these issues through the lens of participatory propaganda rather than simple isolated falsehoods, her work underscores why it is so difficult to correct the record once a false narrative takes hold. Even as she continues to face backlash for her transparency, Starbird remains committed to the necessity of investigative research, advocating for an informed public capable of navigating the complex, often deceptive, digital currents that increasingly define the modern world.
