Disinformation Campaigns Exploit Social Divisions, Experts Warn

For the past eight years, disinformation has cast a shadow over elections worldwide, yet remains widely misunderstood by the public. As political rhetoric grows increasingly divisive, experts argue that citizens must develop a more sophisticated understanding of how disinformation operates to protect democratic processes.

“The most successful disinformation campaigns seize on preexisting fissures in society to drive us further apart,” according to research from the Bellona Foundation and the American Sunlight Project. While these social divisions are natural in robust democracies, they create vulnerability to manipulation by malicious actors.

A fundamental misunderstanding begins with the definition itself. Disinformation refers specifically to the strategic deployment of false or misleading information with an intent to deceive – such as foreign interference campaigns designed to mislead voters. This differs from misinformation, which is false information shared without malicious intent, often by unwitting individuals on social media platforms.

Many people first encountered the concept of online disinformation through Russia’s 2016 interference in the U.S. election, when media coverage highlighted obvious bot accounts and inflammatory posts. This created a misconception that such campaigns are easily identifiable. In reality, the most effective disinformation operations exploit hot-button issues like environmental debates, LGBTQ+ rights, and polarizing global conflicts to amplify existing divisions rather than creating entirely new narratives.

A joint investigation by the Bellona Foundation and American Sunlight Project uncovered a network called “EcoBoost,” which researchers believe is managed from within the Russian Federation. This operation strategically posts about a diverse range of issues, including European energy policies, electric vehicle adoption in Norway, and election-related discussions across multiple countries including the U.S., U.K., Canada, Poland, and Germany.

“EcoBoost and campaigns like it are adopting—and co-opting—a wide range of viewpoints, from the mundane to the inflammatory, in order to insert themselves into discussions of all kinds online,” the researchers noted. The network has even criticized Russia’s sanctions evasion to establish credibility with its audience.

These tactics represent a digital evolution of long-established manipulation strategies. While foreign-backed online disinformation targeting environmental movements may be relatively new, attempts to co-opt environmental messaging are not. The environmental movement’s vulnerability stems from the emotional nature of its issues, sharp internal divisions, and significant conflicts of interest with powerful industries.

Research by Bellona and Analyse & Tall revealed in their “Climate Myths in Social Media” report that 43 percent of climate-related comments on Norwegian Facebook pages were based on misinformation. When groups operate with fundamentally different understandings of reality, it becomes easier for hostile actors to exploit these divisions.

“Legitimate debate – whether one supports or opposes wind power or nuclear – is essential,” says Frederic Hauge, founder of the Bellona Foundation. “But networks like EcoBoost exist to artificially inflame conflict. They fuel division and discontent rather than meaningful debate and cooperation.”

Security experts recommend that social media companies must be pressured to prioritize democratic discourse over engagement metrics that reward inflammatory content. Meanwhile, individuals should practice “lateral reading” when encountering emotional posts online, verifying the legitimacy of sources before sharing content.

Nina Jankowicz, CEO of the American Sunlight Project and former Executive Director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Disinformation Governance Board, suggests asking key questions: “Is this post from a legitimate organization or person? Does their online activity appear human or automated? Are they using overly emotional language to drive engagement? Does their profile picture seem AI-generated?”

Political leaders also bear responsibility, experts argue. Beyond pursuing regulatory solutions, elected officials should model deliberation and civility rather than contributing to the divisive rhetoric that empowers democracy’s adversaries.

“Like our natural environment, the information environment is increasingly polluted,” Hauge and Jankowicz conclude, “but we cannot give up on protecting it.”