Conditions supporting information integrity being challenged – WEF
The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Future Council on Information Integrity released a report on Wednesday, November 11, outlining the challenges of maintaining an environment of reliable information in an age of artificial intelligence and disinformation proliferation, and possible responses that can help keep information integrity alive.
The report, titled, “The Future of Information Integrity: Charting a Global Path in a Fragmented World,” examines information integrity as a systemic challenge across four interconnected layers: creation, consumption, design and distribution, and ecosystem incentives.
Maria Ressa, Rappler CEO and co-chair of the Council, said in the report that information integrity is “the foundation of democracy and thriving societies.”
“A deficit in reliable information directly paralyzes our collective capacity to solve global challenges, from climate change to pandemics. Yet the conditions that have traditionally supported information integrity are being transformed and challenged at a scale and speed with few precedents,” Ressa said.
The report gives case studies and provides opportunities for various sectors— from governments and civil society to tech companies and creators of content — to learn and respond to the changing times, taking on complementary roles to keep the information ecosystem whole.
The creation layer
For the creation layer, the report notes how creators of different stripes approach information integrity differently and can be influenced by factors like monetization strategies and attention.
The report noted how there were gaps in sourcing in editorial verification among both non-traditional creators and established newsrooms.
While creator-led media isn’t necessarily unreliable, the report noted how “systems where editorial duties, training and accountability are unevenly distributed can reach large audiences.”
Generative and synthetic media add to the problem: By generating plausible information and packaging it as real, it can even make genuine material be dismissed as fake. Generative and synthetic media weaken the value of authentic recordings as evidence and makes accountability more complicated.
As regards platform incentives, the report said independent creators who rely on subscriptions or donations to make money off their content might also blur the boundary between reporting, commentary, promotion, and identity-based influence.
This issue becomes more pressing when platforms algorithmically prioritize promoting controversial or emotionally manipulative content, which incentivizes the creation of that type of content.
This sort of platform incentive also feeds into certain actions that can harm public participation, such as the spread of gender-based abuse, harassment, or threats against women, minorities, journalists and other targeted groups.
The consumption layer
The report said that people acquire information in a number of ways and from different sources, and this pluralism makes it difficult to know which institutions to trust with information.
Due to a decline in trust in governments and traditional media, people turn to alternative institutions or authorities for information, such as content creators, online communities, partisan outlets, or encrypted messaging channels — all with less accountability measures in place for disseminating bad information.
Because there is distrust in governments and traditional media, trying to rebuild that trust can also be weaponized, such as government-led initiatives to fact-check reports.
This coexistence of independent and state-affiliated information verification influences the environment of fact-checking. Fact-checks can thus be seen as both public-service journalism and tools for political control.
Further, gaps in access to information also make things more difficult as “gaps in access and usability become gaps in civic participation, which can create populations that are systematically less able to check claims, compare sources or benefit from corrections.”
The design and distribution layer
How information is transmitted — the technical infrastructure where information exists within — is also discussed, as different types of distribution infrastructure (such as forums, encrypted messaging, agentic AI, and others) can also influence the incentive models and the opportunities for stakeholders to intervene in keeping information integrity.
This layer, which includes distribution methods, also contains infrastructure gatekeepers.
From “technical blocking, telecommunications control, restrictive media and cybercrime laws, intimidation of journalists, domain seizures, surveillance and coordinated amplification of official narratives,” there are a range of ways for repressive governments to control information.
“The challenge,” the report states, “is to strike a balance between action and inaction so as not to restrict the right to seek and receive information while still limiting disinformation that fuels polarization, harms human rights and undermines trust in institutions that provide essential services such as public health.”
The ecosystem incentives layer
The ecosystem incentives layer deals with the issues surrounding how newsrooms and other sources of information survive.
With circulation and advertising revenue for news media and other forms of information-sharing — libraries, archives, civil society groups, and the like — drying up due to how information-sharing has changed, there is now a need to change how people view reliable information beyond just clicks and attention.
The report emphasizes that the value of such “information infrastructure” cannot be captured fully by clicks or short-term revenue.
Public service media (PSM), for example, can provide accessible news, education, and emergency information, but its contribution depends on editorial independence, sustainable funding, transparency, and the ability to reach audiences through digital channels. Meanwhile, open-knowledge projects can be vulnerable to political pressure, legal threats, and resource constraints such as funding issues.
The report suggests interventions that include various sectors — from government, philanthropy, and industry — supporting independent journalism, PSM, libraries, archives, open-knowledge projects, and local civil-society infrastructure “through sustainable, transparent and plural funding models,” among other recommendations.
These challenges can’t be resolved alone
Council co-chair Amanda Storey, who is also managing director of trust and safety at Google, said the report “approaches information integrity as a systemic challenge, examining interventions, case studies and future horizons across creation, consumption, design, distribution and ecosystem incentives.”
“Its central premise is that no single technology, institution or sector can resolve these challenges alone. Instead, the future of information integrity depends on whether governments, industry, media, civil society, researchers and communities choose to build an ecosystem in which trustworthy information can continue to thrive,” she added.
The full report from the WEF can be downloaded here. – Rappler.com
