Information Ecosystems
and Troubled Democracy
The State of Knowledge on News Media, AI, and Data Governance
Robin Mansell, Flavia Durach, Matthias Kettemann, Théophile Lenoir, Rob Procter, Gyan Prakash Tripathi, Emily Tucker
A Sociotechnical Crisis
In 2024, the level of democracy enjoy by the average person globally declined to 1985 levels. 72% of the world’s population is now living in autocracies (V-Dem Institute, 2025). This regression is not merely political; it is facilitated by digital infrastructures that prioritize profit over the integrity of information.
We define Information Integrity as access to relevant, reliable, and accurate information and knowledge. Democracy cannot thrive when ecosystems are prone to the “substitution of lies for factual truth” (Arendt, 1968).
“If the right to know is the right to live, then securing inclusive, open, tolerant, and respectful online spaces is imperative.”
Infrastructure Layer
Digital technologies are not natural resources; they are systems of material and social components shaped by human decisions (Acemoglu & Johnson, 2023).
Datafication-for-Profit
A business model that extracts data from users to fuel targeted advertising and manipulative algorithmic design.
Asymmetric Power
Platform companies act as “new governors” of the public sphere, often with more authority than local legislative bodies.
Dependency Cycle
Journalism loses advertising revenue to Big Tech, forcing publishers to contort their content to appease proprietary ranking algorithms.
The Trust Deficit
News media organizations face a crisis of sustainability. Reporters Without Borders (2025) notes that the economic indicator for press freedom is at an “unprecedented” low due to ownership concentration and structural dependency on Big Tech.
Journalism is caught in a dependency cycle where platform algorithms incentivize sensationalism over quality, sacrifice professional standards for engagement metrics.
“Hostility towards the media is increasing, devaluing journalists' public voice and professional legitimacy, especially for women and minority groups (Posetti et al., 2022).”
Financial Precarity
News media organizations face extreme financial instability due to infrastructure capture by platform companies that prioritize engagement over quality journalism.
Journalism is caught in a "dependency cycle," where the loss of advertising revenue to Big Tech compromises journalistic independence and the sustainability of a robust public sphere.
Declining Autonomy
Publishers have little bargaining leverage against an oligopolistic market that controls distribution and monetization.
Vulnerability to Hacks
Cash-starved newsrooms are increasingly susceptible to systematic disinformation campaigns and foreign manipulation.
Workforce Extractivism
AI development relies on low-wage “ghost workers” for data labeling, perpetuating a new form of digital colonial labor (Fendji, 2024).
Automated Discrimination
Historic human biases are statically encoded into model weights, automating exclusion at a planetary scale without recourse.
The Stochastic Parrot
Large Language Models (LLMs) are statistical models that “haphazardly stitch together sequences of linguistic forms observed in vast training data” without any reference to meaning or truth (Bender et al., 2021).
AI systems inherit and amplify algorithmic biases, leading to outcomes that penalize marginalized communities in law enforcement, employment, and democratic participation.
“Epistemic rights are about knowledge—being informed truthfully, understanding the relevance of information, and acting on its basis for the benefit of society (Nieminen, 2024).”
Datafication-for-Profit
Data is not a naturally occurring resource; it is a human-decided record. Big Tech strategies exert monopolistic control through data extractivism, harvesting life-data for private asset accumulation.
This “Data Colonialism” (Couldry & Mejias) creates dependencies that interfere with the political deliberation essential for participatory democracy.
“Knowledge and thought have parted company; we risk becoming thoughtless creatures at the mercy of every technically possible gadget (Arendt, 1958).”
Infrastructure Capture
Big Tech business models turn social interaction into raw material for appropriation, establishing a state of "Surveillance Capitalism" (Zuboff, 2019).
Epistemic Monopolies
Search engines and social feeds define what constitutes "truth" by unilaterally dictating their relevance algorithms.
Brussels Effect
The imposition of EU standards on global platforms through stringent transparency and compliance obligations in the DSA and DMA.
Platform Sovereignty
Terms of Service operate as a private legal order, sidestepping constitutional rights and due process for global citizens.
The Brussels Effect
Governance is a balancing act between self-regulation and direct state authority. The European Union has emerged as a key international norm-maker through the DSA and AI Act (Bradford, 2020).
However, “silver bullet” responses like fact-checking are insufficient to address the structural inequalities and data dependencies that define today's information space.
“Governance must move beyond individualist privacy claims to address population-level social informational harms (Cohen, 2019).”
Global Realities
The information ecosystem is experienced differently depending on where you stand. The "Digital Divide" is not just about connectivity—it is about whose interests are protected by global governance.
Toward a Research-Backed Framework for Data Justice
Governance is not providing sufficiently robust human rights protections. We require a radical reimagining of the digital order.
Radical Resistance
Building alternative data governance frameworks requires "radical resistance" to dominant technology designs. This involves promoting the capacities of local communities to question their dependencies on Big Tech infrastructures.
The goal is to redistribute power away from corporate monopolies toward local political and social communities, ensuring that data production represents the needs of marginalized people.
Collective Interests
Addressing exploitative datafication depends on protecting collective interests in democracy. This means treating data governance as a lever for restructuring markets and tackling concentrations of wealth that jeopardize international solidarity.
Meaningful deliberation must support novel approaches that avoid reproducing epistemic injustices and prioritize "the right to know" as a fundamental human right.
Research Corpus
Explore the 3,000+ sources that informed this assessment. This library maps the diverse range of journals and authors who contributed to this work.