Fact check: What role do Canadian influencers play in spreading misinformation on social media?

1. A handful of “power users” can skew public conversation and civic trust

Research on the 2023 Alberta election found that a small group of highly active social media accounts—described as “power users”—generated outsized engagement, abusive interactions, and inauthentic behaviour that distorted online civic discussions. That concentration means misinformation can spread rapidly if those accounts push false or misleading narratives, because their reach and engagement metrics create visibility advantages on algorithms that reward activity. The SAM Centre report links this pattern to weakening public deliberation and increased abuse in political discourse, underlining how few actors can drive broad misinformation effects ^[1].

2. Platform moderation reversals change incentives for influencers

YouTube’s decision to reinstate creators previously banned for COVID-19 and election misinformation demonstrates how platform policy reversals reshape incentives for Canadian influencers. Reinstatement sends a signal that previously disallowed content creators may regain visibility, potentially emboldening influencers to re-enter conversations with similar claims or to test boundary-pushing content. This dynamic affects not only the volume of misinformation but also the perceived risk for creators of spreading it, altering the balance between harmful amplification and corrective moderation in the information ecosystem ^[2].

3. Organized advocacy groups supply alternate content pathways

Canadian advocacy networks—ranging from vaccine-hesitant organizations to vaccine advocates—provide structured content, talking points, and community validation that influencers can borrow or amplify. Groups like Vaccine Choice Canada and the Canadian Covid Care Alliance curate materials that may present alternative interpretations of risk and treatment, which influencers then disseminate into follower communities. Conversely, personal conversion stories from former anti-vaxxers show influencers can also act as bridges for corrective information, making influencers multipurpose vectors depending on their affiliations and audiences ^{[3] [4] [5]}.

4. Youth-targeted platform changes affect exposure and susceptibility

Regulatory scrutiny and platform responses—such as TikTok’s commitments to improved age-gating and privacy—alter the exposure of younger users to influencer content. Stricter age-assurance and privacy controls reduce the reach of problematic influencer material among children and teenagers, changing the demographics of who receives misinformation. At the same time, age-targeted reforms can shift influencer strategies toward other platforms or private channels, meaning policy wins can displace rather than eliminate influence-driven misinformation flows if not paired with broader enforcement and education efforts ^{[6] [7]}.

5. News policy reforms reshape where influencers insert themselves in information flows

The Canadian Online News Act and other regulatory moves affect the economics and visibility of professional journalism on platforms where influencers operate. As news sharing and monetization shift, influencers may step into informational voids or amplify niche sources to satisfy audience demand for interpretation and commentary. This can increase the prominence of influencer-produced analyses—accurate or not—in civic debates. Thus, platform- and policy-driven changes in news ecosystems indirectly influence the incentives for influencers to produce and monetize potentially misleading content ^[8].

6. Corrective influence exists but faces structural headwinds

There are documented cases where influencers and individuals reverse misinformation within their communities—such as a former anti-vaxxer who became an advocate for vaccination—which demonstrates the potential for influencers to act as corrective agents. However, corrective narratives often compete with entrenched networks of alternate information and targeted advocacy sites that sustain doubt. The presence of both corrective influencers and organized disinformation-adjacent groups creates a contested informational terrain where the net effect on public beliefs depends on reach, credibility, and platform amplification mechanisms ^{[5] [3]}.

7. Enforcement gaps and platform strategy create ambiguity in accountability

The combined evidence shows that policy changes, platform reinstatements, and incomplete enforcement produce a patchwork of accountability that influences what Canadian influencers can and will post. Reinstatement policies, inconsistent moderation, and regulatory lag create opportunity windows for influencers to test disinformation or repurpose banned rhetoric in new forms. This ambiguous environment complicates efforts to measure influence-driven misinformation and to design interventions that reliably reduce harm without unduly restricting legitimate speech ^{[2] [1] [8]}.

8. What’s missing from current coverage and why it matters

Existing analyses highlight patterns—power-user concentration, platform policy shifts, advocacy group activity, and youth exposure controls—but lack consistent, longitudinal tracking of individual influencer networks, cross-platform migration, and monetization incentives. Without systematic, multi-platform datasets and up-to-date enforcement audits, policymakers and platforms lack the granular evidence needed to target the most harmful amplification pathways. Closing that gap requires coordinated monitoring and transparency from platforms, regulators, and independent observatories to determine whether influencers are primarily vectors of harm or critical correctors in Canadian online civic life ^{[9] [7]}.