Misinformation is not just a headache of the internet age; it appears to be a built‑in feature of how living things communicate, from bacteria and ants to birds and humans. A new review in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface argues that misleading signals arise naturally whenever organisms share information, rather than being a rare glitch of modern media.
What the study set out to explain
Researchers reviewed evidence of socially shared misinformation across many species and levels of biological organization, from simple microbes to complex human societies. Their goal was to understand whether misinformation is an abnormal breakdown of communication or an expected consequence of how information flows and evolves in nature.
To do this, the team combined real‑world examples with mathematical models that generalize what it means for an organism to hold “beliefs” and to update them when exposed to signals from others. These models let scientists compare how accurate or inaccurate those beliefs become when information is noisy, biased, or strategically manipulated.
False signals in the animal world
The review highlights that deceptive or misleading signals are common in non‑human species. Some animals fake alarm calls to scare rivals away from food, while others use bluffing displays to appear stronger or more dangerous than they really are.
Even simpler organisms can transmit unreliable cues. Bacteria, for example, communicate chemically to coordinate group behavior, but those signals can be distorted or exploited in ways that mislead neighboring cells. These cases show that imperfect or biased information is deeply rooted in evolution, not invented by social media.
Why misinformation is “inevitable”
The authors conclude that misinformation is likely an unavoidable side effect of basic communication constraints, rather than a disease that can be completely cured. Signals can be noisy, receivers have limited attention and memory, and different organisms often have conflicting interests, all of which create room for misunderstanding and manipulation.
Because of these limits, natural selection can sometimes favor individuals who send strategically biased signals or who adopt simple mental shortcuts that work “well enough” but regularly lead to false beliefs. In this view, misinformation persists because it can piggyback on the same mechanisms that usually make information sharing beneficial.
What this means for human societies
Although the paper surveys biology broadly, its message has clear implications for people living in an online world flooded with claims, rumors, and conspiracy theories. If misinformation is a basic property of communication systems, then no amount of fact‑checking alone will erase it.
Instead, the findings support approaches that focus on resilience: improving people’s ability to question sources, understand uncertainty, and navigate complex information environments. The natural history of misinformation suggests that the goal should be managing and limiting its harms, rather than hoping to eliminate it entirely.
