Disinformation is a global phenomenon that affects almost all countries because anyone with a political agenda can use disinformation in pursuit of political power (Bradshaw and Howard, 2018). Disinformation campaigns are particularly suited to exacerbating already strained ideological, societal, and political relationships, and these campaigns often work to sow individual distrust in government capability and sovereignty (Jackson, 2018; Ma, 2018). Disinformation existed in the past (Levin, 2016), but the growing ubiquity of social media grants political actors increasing capacity to spread dangerous rhetoric and imagery in their pursuit of power (Woolley and Howard, 2017). Incendiary content has the potential to catalyze mob violence, riots, and vigilantes taking the law into their own hands (Frenkel, 2018). Disinformation and fostered distrust in legitimate news sources can lead to threats and violence against journalists, further undermining the institutions that could provide accurate information (UNESCO, 2018.).
In the cases we discuss here—the U.S.-Mexico border, India and Sri Lanka, and three Latin American 2018 elections—disinformation inflamed existing cleavages and caused violence. While these illustrative cases are spread across the world, and the violence in each place is related to distinct histories, close analysis highlights five common challenges for addressing disinformation in areas vulnerable to violence. These common challenges include:
The growing ubiquity of social media, usually combined with low trust in traditional forms of media,
creating a situation in which disinformation can spread quickly.
• Low or declining trust in government institutions, causing a rise in vigilantism—which social media
encourages and fuels.
• Low levels of media literacy, and sometimes also low levels of general literacy, among perpetrators who
do not have consistent access to formal school systems.
• No transparency in social media company policies, making it difficult to evaluate and improve upon content
moderation policies that could quell or spur violence.
• Finally, government actors that could legislate change have an interest using disinformation to their own
ends.