Executive Summary
Across numerous elections, we observed a concerted effort to spread disinformation from a range of actors — often with the purpose to advance their political aims and sow seeds of discontent around the efficacy of government institutions and electoral processes. Unsurprisingly, socially-charged issues were also played up in many of the elections that we analyzed.
As governments, platforms and civil society develop new mitigation efforts, disinformation tactics evolve in kind. For example, in some markets disinformation was rife on smaller platforms, particularly as larger platforms became more effective at combatting disinformation. Another example was the use of influencers as a new pathway by which to influence public opinion in the political sphere.
Foreign interference appeared to be directly correlated with current geopolitical events, particularly ongoing wars and identity political issues, and these issues were leveraged to increase domestic tensions in the populace. Therefore,Taiwan and the EU were more exposed to significant foreign disinformation campaigns, while outside attempts to influence campaign discourse in Indonesia, South Africa and Mexico were limited.
Although AI was used in these elections, it was not as disruptive as experts feared. There was some use of the nascent technologies to manipulate or polish images or increase content volume. Many AI companies had policies in place, however, they were enforced inconsistently. On the other hand, there were numerous early efforts to leverage AI in combating disinformation.
Some governments had active and comprehensive responses against disinformation, while others had more targeted responses. In Taiwan, the government served as a leader and key collaborator, spearheading a “whole of society” approach. In the EU, these were the first elections since implementation of the Digital Services Act (DSA). Although difficult to measure its exact impact, the DSA’s additional requirements and guidelines have undoubtedly compelled platforms to become more diligent in assessing and mitigating risks — and helped to create greater transparency. Meanwhile, South Africa and Mexico featured extensive partnerships between electoral institutions, platforms, and civil society.
