Strengthening information integrity in the Global South: Reflections from a two-part online engagement
Across the Global South, communities are experiencing profound shifts in how information is generated and shared, how narratives are shaped, and how digital technologies are governed. These dynamics have far-reaching impacts on all forms of civic participation and democratic resilience. Against this backdrop, the Centre for Information Integrity in Africa (CINIA) has embarked on a three-year project called Strengthening Information Integrity and Convening Strategic Partnerships in the Global South, bringing together a network of diverse organisations across Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. On 31 October and 4 November 2025, 27 participants convened for a two-part online engagement, ahead of their in-person meeting in January 2026 to share what they have been learning, outcomes of their work so far, and to collectively define the project’s research agenda. Over two days, the discussions demonstrated the richness of perspectives and strategies these organisations and communities contribute to the work of strengthening information integrity.
Understanding contexts and evolving research approaches
Global South feminists have been predicting the reengineering of global power through technology for years. The first day’s discussions presented an opportunity to reflect on how profoundly our digital and political landscapes have intertwined, and thus, transformed, in the recent years. Participants reflected on what has emerged in their contexts, and how these shifts are reshaping their research, advocacy and collaboration around technology and democracy.
Across regions, a dominating theme emerged: the accelerating weaponisation of technology. Digital tools are being deployed against civilians especially in conflict-afflicted areas such as Gaza, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Myanmar through artificial intelligence (AI)-driven targeting systems, surveillance platforms and coordinated disinformation campaigns. All of these contributed to the escalation of civilian harm and entrenched authoritarian control. In Latin America, technology-facilitated violence has extended into environmental and territorial exploitation, from data centres in water-scarce Indigenous regions to the expansion of Starlink satellite infrastructure. Moreover, gendered digital violence against women activists has also intensified. All of these reminded us that our digital, physical and psycho-social experiences are no longer distinct, and that violence is a continuum across online and physical spaces.
At the same time, platform governance has faced regression. Prominently, for example, is the case of Meta, who had made the controversial announcement earlier this year that it would be removing its fact-checking programme, and introduced policies to reduce content restrictions. Moreover, participants noted that content moderation systems that were once supported by thousands of workers across Asia have been dismantled as major platforms cut costs, leaving significant gaps in non-English content contexts. This disinvestment from content moderation by private companies has eroded trust and accountability for researchers working on information integrity. Meanwhile, emerging digital spaces like Discord are becoming digital hubs for political mobilisation, as seen in the recent protests in Nepal. However, participants warned that these decentralised structures may lack governance guardrails, and this raises new questions about accountability and ethics in increasingly digitally mediated civic action.
Linked to this was the velocity of information. Social media can now fuel political mobilisation within hours, and it heightens the engagement of demographics such as Gen Z activists in movements. Yet this speed also amplifies disinformation and exacerbates risks for journalists, researchers and activists. Content moderation by platforms also rely significantly on AI for decision-making, despite the biases inherent in AI systems remaining unaddressed.
Participants also contended with the extent to which the vested interests of governments are informing new policies for regulating online content at the national level. While efforts such as the European Union’s (EU) Digital Services Act and media bargaining laws in Australia and Canada mark important milestones, regulations are increasingly used by both democratic and authoritarian governments as instruments of information control. The need for rights-based and globally informed regulatory frameworks has never been more urgent, especially with AI accelerating these risks.
Despite shrinking civic scapes, participants spoke of the creativity of civil society in navigating the gaps in research. In this, they cited many initiatives such as cross-regional research collaborations, strategic litigation, as well as emerging government-led digital accountability initiatives in regulating social media platforms and AI.
These contextual changes are transforming research practices. Institutions engaged in research are now mainstreaming digital and information issues across thematic areas. They are also building more locally-grounded partnerships, and shifting towards action-oriented research that can provide clear, policy-relevant recommendations for all stakeholders. Participants recognised that national issues can no longer be separated from global power structures, especially when Big Tech companies have influences across borders. South-South collaborations are becoming more vital in navigating shared challenges, such as AI governance and misinformation. In order to protect digital freedoms, researchers and other stakeholders must work hand-in-hand in an interdisciplinary, cross-sector collaboration towards a digital future that is more grounded in justice and accountability.
Finally, participants called for a deeper reimagining of power, technology and democracy. As Big Tech and political movements continue to shape the digital future, civil society must move beyond incremental fixes and envision a new, more democratic technological architecture. As noted by a participant, “given [..] alliances between Big Tech and governments [..] closing democratic space, we need a larger reimagination of an alternative vision, rather than getting trapped in their premises.”
