In the not-so-distant past, Australians could count on a shared set of facts. Our democracy, like many others, was built on assumptions that information could be verified, that truth could be determined, public debate was deliberative and inclusive, and that those in power could be held accountable. But the information environment underpinning those assumptions has radically changed.
Today, we inhabit a world where every human is a potential sensor and broadcaster, every social feed is a battleground, and every “truth” is contestable. The historical gatekeepers of knowledge have faded, and with them, much of the institutional trust that stabilised our public discourse. Instead, we have algorithmic chaos – an environment optimised for “engagement” through outrage, polarisation, and manipulation.
This is not nostalgia for the days of trusted newsreaders and editorial oversight. The decline in institutional trust is, in some ways, deserved. Yet we have failed to design for what has replaced it. Instead, the platforms that now mediate our public discourse are designed for the relentless harvesting of our attention, a trillion-dollar economy. Misinformation, disinformation and AI-driven manipulation are no longer peripheral – they are central threats to the integrity of our democratic processes.
The information environment is under strain in three interconnected ways.
First, the content itself is increasingly synthetic, shaped by AI and curated for engagement. Social platforms amplify outrage and polarisation, eroding a sense of shared reality.
Second, the infrastructure delivering this content is concentrated in the hands of a few, with little transparency and even less accountability. These companies set the rules, often resisting efforts to counter foreign interference or moderate harmful content, and equate moderation with censorship.
Third, our own cognitive functioning is being hacked. Algorithms exploit psychological vulnerabilities and impact our emotional states. The health consequences are profound, particularly for vulnerable groups who are disproportionately targeted by online abuse and disinformation.
Our ability to govern – to hold elections, and to deliberate as a society – depends on the integrity of our information environment. The rise of microtargeting, deepfakes, and AI-driven manipulation has made it easier than ever for malign actors to interfere in political processes, exploit social divisions, and undermine trust.
We are seeing the consequences. We are perilously close to losing our shared understanding of the basic facts and processes that make democracy possible.
Despite having more data at our fingertips than ever before, we’re more likely to miss the real signals that matter. This was vividly illustrated in Los Angeles in recent weeks, where US President Donald Trump and California Governor Gavin Newsom engaged in a war of words to capture the narrative. Trump claimed Newsom should be arrested and sent in the National Guard to what one member of his administration called a city of criminals. Newsom, in response, called this the “acts of a dictator” and California filed a lawsuit.
Our technology ecosystem is vulnerable to malign influence, privacy breaches, and to business models that prioritise profit over public good.
The waves of mis- and dis-information that accompany current conflicts and political events highlight our vulnerability to division and manipulation. The trajectory is clear. If we continue to ignore the collapse of shared reality, if we fail to build new systems to stabilise truth, democratic norms will erode – not in a single dramatic moment, but through a thousand small compromises. Parliaments will still sit, elections will still be held, but truth will become optional, reason performative, and power increasingly untouchable.
In the past, information scarcity meant there was less to keep track of. The volume and speed of information now exceed our ability to process it. The consequences are real. Politicians and strategists who rely on filtered information feeds can misread public sentiment, leading to electoral surprises such as the magnitude of the 2025 Labor win in Australia. Investors operating in echo chambers might miss critical insights, resulting in poor returns. Geopolitical analysts might miss indicators of military action.
What’s at stake is more than just individual decisions. The resilience of our information environment is central to our security, economy, and democracy. When we can’t agree on basic facts or trust the information we receive, democratic debate and consensus are near impossible.
Australia is not immune. Our democracy has strengths – compulsory voting, a hybrid political system, and relatively robust, comparatively respected institutions. But we are not insulated from the global forces fragmenting the information environment. Our media landscape is increasingly mediated by social platforms and niche publishing: algorithmic curation fuels engagement over democratic process. Our technology ecosystem is vulnerable to malign influence, privacy breaches, and to business models that prioritise profit over public good.
We have a narrow window to act. Two interventions are critical.
First, we must strengthen the resilience of our information environment, individually and structurally. It includes investing in digital literacy, critical thinking, and the skills to assess credibility, authenticity and source. We need to get better at selecting and interpreting information, but integrating and fusing it is much more important than finding it. Improving awareness of how algorithms shape what we see and seeking out alternative perspectives is vital. In a world where truth is increasingly fragmented, the quality of decisions will depend on being able to navigate these complexities. It also means building trusted infrastructure, systems and partnerships.
Second, we must disrupt the extractive data economy and move away from business models that profit from surveillance, tracking and manipulation. If we do not do this now, it may no longer be possible.
The information environment is now the primary battleground for influence, power, and social cohesion. If we do not act urgently the cracks will continue to widen. We need to adapt now as the window is closing fast.
