Democracy’s Digital Crisis: Disinformation in the House of Mirrors

If democracy dies in darkness as the Washington Post motto attests, what happens to it in a house of mirrors?

We live in an age when a significant portion of the population believes demonstrably false information—and many of these people vote. This troubling reality poses a fundamental challenge to democratic governance worldwide.

Disinformation—deliberately false information shared with malicious intent—has always lurked in political campaigns. But what once consisted of anonymous handbills and whisper campaigns has transformed into sophisticated, difficult-to-detect falsehoods flooding the digital landscape. These deceptions are amplified by partisan networks and algorithms that prioritize engagement over accuracy, generating billions in revenue for tech companies.

A Harvard Kennedy School of Government study found that while “misinformation sharing is strongly correlated with right-leaning partisanship,” people across the political spectrum share dubious content. The real danger may be that disinformation serves its own purpose: creating informational chaos that erodes public confidence in democratic systems.

“Almost every democracy is under stress, independent of technology,” notes Darrell M. West, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “When you add disinformation on top of that, it just creates many opportunities for mischief.”

Identifying the sources of disinformation presents a formidable challenge. A joint warning issued by the FBI and the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency before the 2024 election identified Iranian and Russian actors “knowingly disseminating false claims and narratives that seek to undermine the American people’s confidence in the election process.”

These foreign operatives employ sophisticated tactics such as “cyber squatting”—creating websites with domain names resembling legitimate news outlets like “washingtonpost.pm” or “fox-new.in.” The content mimics real news sites to gain credibility and encourage sharing. While authorities have flagged hundreds of suspicious websites, new ones can emerge instantaneously from anywhere in the world.

Domestic partisans also contribute significantly to the problem. The Brookings Institution documented numerous instances of fake campaign “news” during recent elections, including fabricated images of Kamala Harris with Jeffrey Epstein, a fraudulent Fordham transcript showing poor grades for Donald Trump, AI-generated sexual abuse allegations against Tim Walz, and conspiracy theories suggesting Trump orchestrated assassination attempts against himself.

Foreign actors, particularly Russia, appear content simply creating chaos—fostering an environment where determining truth becomes nearly impossible, making it easier for people to retreat into information bubbles that confirm existing beliefs.

What drives people to share unverified information? The Harvard study points to the complex ecosystem of social media, where human users interact with an increasing number of automated “bots.” The authors note that predicting the impact of disinformation campaigns is extraordinarily difficult due to “the large, complex, and dynamic networks of interactions enabled by social media.”

Their research did establish that false information tends to be shared by those at the political extremes and that “false reports spread more virally than real news.” This virality stems partly from novelty—fake content often presents information that seems new or surprising—and can be targeted to confirm what users want to believe.

The business model of search engines and social media platforms exacerbates these problems. Despite their presentation as neutral tools, these companies earn hundreds of billions annually by selling access to and data about their users. Their primary goal isn’t to provide accurate information but to maximize engagement, keeping users online to expand their advertising reach.

Historian Yuval Noah Harari, in his book “Nexus,” compares today’s information environment to historical witch hunts: “An unregulated information market doesn’t necessarily lead people to identify and correct their errors, because it may well prioritize outrage over truth. For truth to win, it is necessary to establish curation institutions that have the power to tilt the balance in favor of facts.”

Traditional journalism—once a primary “curation institution”—has been severely weakened, with the number of reporters and editors in the United States dropping by more than 60 percent since 2008, according to Georgetown University research. This decline coincides with advertising revenue shifting to digital platforms. Meanwhile, public trust in mainstream media continues to erode, with a 2024 Gallup Poll showing approximately one-third of Americans expressing “no trust at all” in traditional news sources.

Various approaches to combating disinformation are being tested. NewsGuard, founded in 2018 by Court TV creator Steve Brill and former Wall Street Journal publisher Gordon Crovitz, provides “source reliability ratings” based on “apolitical journalistic criteria.” While respected by many journalists, the service has faced criticism from some who view it as part of a “censorship system.”

Politifact Editor-in-Chief Katie Sanders expressed surprise at recent attacks on the concept of fact-checking itself. “What surprised us was that fact-checking became a bargaining chip in the [2024] election,” she said, noting controversy around live fact-checking during campaign events.

A comprehensive study involving over 33,000 participants tested multiple strategies for combating disinformation, including warnings, source credibility labeling, media literacy tips, and debunking efforts. While researchers called the results promising, these interventions improved users’ ability to identify false information by only 5 to 10 percent—a modest gain compared to the overwhelming scale of digital misinformation.

Despite these challenges, Sanders remains optimistic: “The facts do matter. But it’s taking more stamina than ever before to stand up for them, and to have that work be valued.”