The Disinformation Cycle
And breaking it
The vicious cycle
Democracy assumes the “wisdom of crowds”. Or that the combined knowledge of a collective is superior to any individual. This wisdom assumes that the crowd is “informed”. At least, to some minimal bar. The bar need not be too high. Because collective wisdom corrects individual deficiencies. In other words, the signal cleans-up the noise.
In theory, at least.
In practice, it an increasing number of voters are succumbing to disinformation. These misinformed voters are electing representatives based on disinformation. These elected representatives influence power structures that in turn, contribute more disinformation. And hence, a disinformation cycle emerges.

Information, information, information
But what is it that “flows” through this vicious cycle? What is it that flows from voter to representative? Representative to power structure? Power structure to information? And back to the voter?
The answer: information.
Elections, where voters elect representatives, are information gathering processes. Each voter fills-in a form indicating their representative preference. When representatives’ decisions influence power, those decisions are information. For example, deciding who gets to have TV broadcast licences.
Similarly, the powers that be, political, economic and social, decide what new information adds to the pool, and what subtracts. And finally, some subset of this information flows back to the voter.
Strategies for breaking the cycle
It is difficult to pinpoint why the cycle got started. For example, was it because too many voters were uneducated? Or was it because a few bad-apple politicians got elected? Or because a few plutocrats changed how power structures influenced media? And for the worse? Or did information itself change? Say from books to social media?
The answer is probably a bit of all these things. Either way, we need to break the cycle. Ideally, in several places.
Irrespective of which place you try to break, there are some basic “breaking” strategies. Some better than others.
Reduction
Regulating mediums of information (from Facebook to TV channels to newspapers) is a common tactic. Often by defining specific types of information as “inappropriate” or “against policy”.
Though far more controversial, restrictions could also be applied to the next stage. For example, what if certain “misinformed” voters are not allowed to vote?
Much of “constitutional reform” consists of clipping the wings of representatives. Giving them less power so that they influence power structures less. The most talked-about “reform idea” in Sri Lanka is probably “abolishing the executive presidency”.
The process by which power structures influences information is, on the one hand, simple. For example, consider a society where only a minority is educated, and the majority is illiterate. The minority would create books, ideas, science, and philosophy.
On the other hand, this process is complicated, because even across members of a minority, views and ideas could differ. For example, in medieval Europe, only a minority was educated. But those of that minority who had opinions that contradicted the church were censored or worse.
Either way, powers can be restricted from producing information. And have been, historically.
Backlash
A backlash might seem like reduction, but it is subtly different.
Any deficiency or perceived injustice can be combatted with the opposite injustice. For example, if it is perceived that voters get too much of one type of misinformation, this can be countered by a different kind of misinformation. Just as the Alt-Left is combatting the misinformation of the Alt-Right.
Similarly, if the democratic rights of one group are perceived to be infringed, the rights of some opposing group could be breached in return. Similar tit-for-tat tactics happen in how representatives influence power structures, and how these power structures affect information.
Expansion
Presently there is some tension between regulation and libertarian-esque “freedom”. Especially around information on the internet. Should there be absolute freedom of expression, or should there be restrictions? Many argue that this expansion of information is preferable to reduction.
At its birth, democracy too was restricted. To a few people, usually male, old and rich. Since then it has expanded to near universality. But even today, there is an opportunity for further expansion. Particularly, given that not all people and communities participate in democracy equally.
Expansion in how representatives influence power structures, is less about quantity and more about diversity. “Checks and balances” across different branches of government operate on this principle. For example, while the executive has considerable power, a legislature or a judiciary has the power that could check those powers.
Finally, just as powers might be censored, as the church did in mediaeval Europe, powers can be encouraged to be more diverse. Advances in Science, Arts and Culture contribute to this diversity. As do improvements to living conditions and aspirations.
Expansion — In Practice
On the surface, “Expansion” might be the prefered “breaking” strategy. The reasons might seem obvious. After all, what’s wrong with “Freedom of Speech”, “Democracy”, “Checks and Balances” and “Diversity of Creativity”?
In theory, there is nothing wrong with all of these things. In fact, they are ideal. However, in practice, they face considerable obstacles.
Many social media organizations have argued for “Freedom of Speech”. But many views are “gagged” on social media, because the nature of feed ranking, advertising and virality significantly bias towards some opinions as opposed to others. Feed Ranking might optimize Ad Revenue, but not Enlightened Discourse.
There are similar inequalities in democracy. In practice, a rich man has “more votes” than a poor man, because the former can bribe politicians with millions in political contributions. The starving man or the sick man, who can’t afford to trudge to the polling booth has no vote at all.
Similarly, while all MPs might look equal on paper, with the same mandate, a few are considerably more equal than others.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, restrictions on thought and ideas put considerable breaks on creativity. And ultimately progress. There is an apt saying that “science progresses whenever a Nobel laureate dies”. Some of the most anti-education is from educationalists. And others who promote a status-quo as opposed to freedom of thought.
Equity
There is a solution to all these problems of “expansion”: Equity.
The most significant improvement to the internet is killing Revenue driven “feed ranking”. In one stroke, this removes all the political, demographic, and ideological biases rampant in social media. A simple alternative is a random display or ranking by time. Why should a companies revenue determine what an utterly unrelated individual thinks?
The most significant improvement to democracy is to restrict inequalities of influence. Political contributions are probably at the top of the list.
Just as a few voters shouldn’t have undue political influence, no politician should have extreme power. Governments should be split into as many branches with robust checks and balances. Extreme positions like executive presidencies and executive prime-ministerships should be abolished.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the stranglehold that a few institutions have on culture and creativity should go.
What to do?
Thus, I believe that equity will begin to break down the vicious Disinformation Cycle.
“But who is going to start the ball rolling?”, you ask.
I can start. So can you. How? Here are a few practical ideas.
- Move away from biased information sources
- Exercise your democratic rights. Help the “have-nots” acquire these rights. Expose and destroy the extreme rights of the “have-yachts”.
- Vote for checks and balances, and weakening political power.
- Champion diversity of thought and creativity

