In a world where technology development sets the pace of change, even our perception of reality undergoes a rapid transformation. Disinformation is a case point: the way this false or misleading content is created, spreads and looks like, has been changing quickly. Understanding this evolving dynamics and its impact on society offers valuable insights into how we can address some of the most pressing challenges facing democracies today.

This is precisely what a report published this year by the European Commission's Joint Research Center (JRC) , thanks to a thorough evidence-based analysis by leading researchers in the field. The report, Fractured Reality – how democracy can win the global struggle over the information space, contains both a diagnosis and concrete suggestions for a way forward.

Mario Scharfbillig, Science Policy Advisor at the JRC and one of the report's two lead authors says: “In the past, disinformation, for example about human-caused climate change, typically took the form of specific, identifiable falsehoods that were meant to be believed and that could be corrected once the facts became known and sufficiently widespread. People shared a common understanding that truth, at least in principle, was something that could be found.”

Mario Scharfbillig: “Societies have moved through a 'shock and chaos' phase marked by growing indifference to truth. This phase saw the rise of 'alternative facts', increasing bot activity, and FIMI (Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference), all of which have now blended into what we call the 'fantasy-industrial complex'.” - Read the full interview with Mario Scharfbillig

The way we consume information today is increasingly mediated by digital platforms, including social media. Their business models are built around what experts call the attention economy: “It is a system in which platforms, in collaboration with creators and advertisers, deliberately design content to capture, retain, and hence monetise human attention”, says Stephan Lewandowsky, Professor of Psychology at the University of Bristol and the report's other lead author. “Unfortunately, this business model is, at best, indifferent to truth.”

Stephan Lewandowsky: “Because human attention is drawn to information that is negative, emotional, and conflictual, the engagement-based business model will likely favour precisely the content that corrodes democratic discourse. Misinformation evokes more outrage than trustworthy content, and outrage is algorithmically successful.” - Read the full interview with Stephan Lewandowsky

A web of causes

If platforms keep feeding users content that aligns with what they like or believe, audiences are more likely to see their existing worldview reflected and reinforced in this curated representation of reality. And because audiences are far from monolithic, the effect can be deeply divisive: “differences in attitudes will be exacerbated by the algorithms and will drive people further apart over time”, Lewandowsky points out.

In other words, polarisation and the formation of echo chambers emerge as consequence of the attention economy. A growing body of scientific research is documenting this dynamic.

But who is ultimately to blame, humans or the algorithm? “Human psychology does much of the work”, Lewandowsky acknowledges, “but people make those choices inside an architecture designed by platforms, without their knowledge or input, and optimised for engagement rather than accuracy”.

Mario Scharfbillig points to another, more deliberate mechanism, captured by the acronym FIMI: Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference. “In this context, specific falsehoods aren't necessarily meant to be believed. Their function is often to distract, generate distrust, and normalise anti-democratic attitudes. As a result, common ground starts to look unreachable, and a democratic debate increasingly appears challenging, if not futile. In short: it fractures realities”.

On top of all this, Generative AI acts as an amplifier of existing problems while also introducing new ones. On the one hand, it accelerates the production of contents – including personalised and persuasive ones. On the other, it can create the illusion of knowledge: “LLMs rarely say 'I don't know'. They answer all questions confidently, creating a false sense that a question has been thoroughly addressed, even when it hasn't”.

The risk is that plausibility may come to replace verification. In a recent scientific paper led by Walter Quattrociocchi, Professor at Sapienza University of Rome and one of the report's authors, researchers label this phenomenon Epistemia. “It has the potential to foster false feelings of competence in users, something that research has increasingly confirmed. People appear more confident in their views after interacting with AI, even when the content they received was false or biased”, adds Scharfbillig.

Therefore, blaming individuals for being misinformed or simply urging citizens to be more critical is not enough. “The problems are systemic, and they require systemic solutions”, says Lewandowsky.

What the EU can do

The report argues that while the EU has the legal right to set the rules (digital sovereignty), it holds limited control over the technology itself (digital autonomy), as “most of the platforms and infrastructure that make up Europeans' information space are owned outside the EU”, notes Scharfbillig. This dependence exposes Europe to a range of risks, from mass data collection to shifting content priorities and the potential manipulation of democratic debate.

The EU needs to regain the initiative: “Our report argues not to focus too much on the content level when it comes to ensuring a healthy information space, but rather on the structural incentives of the system”, argues Scharfbillig.

Using the Union's annual public procurement to favour EU-owned systems would be an essential first step, and several promising initiatives, such as EuroStack and the Digital Commons European Digital Infrastructure Consortium (DC-EDIC), are already underway.

Decentralised social media built on open protocols also deserve support, says Scharfbillig, “such as the FediVerse (e.g. Mastodon), ATmosphere (e.g. BlueSky), and the Eurosky project. They cannot be unilaterally shut down, and they open the door to European 'middleware' innovation”.

The concept refers to introducing technological layers that give users and public institutions greater control over how information is filtered and presented. “Users should be able to choose their recommender algorithm and other attributes of the platform from a menu of providers, rather than being locked into a single proprietary feed. That would open competition on quality rather than addictiveness”, says Lewandowsky.

Other measures

Another measure to counter misinformation would be introducing a digital advertising tax – an idea supported by Nobel laureates Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson. “It could even be scaled to the concentration of harmful content in a platform's output, much as we tax industrial pollution”, argues Lewandowsky.

A strategic priority would also be to develop European AI systems that respect EU values: “It would be worth investing in a 'CERN for Data and Democracy'. This would give researchers faster access to platform data, allowing research and policy to keep pace with a fast-moving information environment”, argues Scharfbillig.

Beyond all these structural initiatives, action can also be taken at the level of content. Human psychology can be stubborn, and research has shown that once a misinformed belief takes hold, it can be difficult to dislodge.

That's why, rather than relying primarily on ex-post interventions such as fact-checking and debunking, Lewandowsky advocates an ex-ante approach – as, in his words, a substantial body of evidence demonstrates its effectiveness.

“Pre-bunking, or psychological inoculation, follows the vaccination logic”, he argues: “Instead of correcting falsehoods after the fact, you forewarn people that they may be misled and expose them to a weakened dose of the manipulation – for example, the tactics used by disinformers, such as the tobacco industry, or fake experts, false dichotomies, or emotional exploitation. Having explained and refuted the technique in a safe setting (such as a brief educational video), people become more resistant when they encounter misleading argumentation in the wild”.

Useful link:

Fractured Reality – how democracy can win the global struggle over the information space, European Commission's Joint Research Center (JRC), 2026

Related content:

• An expert's opinion: interview with Mario Scharfbillig on disinformation and democracy
• An expert's opinion: interview with Prof. Stephan Lewandowsky on disinformation and democracy