What Happens to Democratic Decision-Making in a Fragmented Information Environment?

Editor’s Note: This article draws on the author’s reflections following their participation as a speaker at Defending the Democratic Public Sphere in the Age of AI, the second roundtable in the CIC National Dialogue Series. Presented in partnership with the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (KAS) Canada, the series asks what choices Canada must make to exercise real influence in a fractured world.

On August 18, Premier Danielle Smith acknowledged that Alberta’s looming 10-question referendum was being targeted by foreign influence campaigns. This should not come as a surprise. Researchers and experts have been sounding the alarm for months, warning that Alberta was both vulnerable and ill-equipped to deal with potential manipulation ahead of the vote on October 19.

A Fragmented Digital Landscape

Foreign interference and disinformation are only slices of a much larger pie. Albertans are being asked to make a decision in a highly contested, politically charged environment, without a clear sense of where to find trusted information. The environment was already fragmented, with news banned on Meta platforms since 2023, but now, during a deeply contentious provincial referendum, the gaps are being filled by foreign actors, recycled content, influencers, and AI slop that stokes division online. 

The consequences for democracy are high, and they extend beyond whether someone believes misinformation or disinformation.

Media and information literacy is key. Can people distinguish between real and manipulated content? Can they identify the signs that point to AI-generated content? Can they, or will they, double-check a source?

But these questions assume that the person on the other side of the screen feels confident (and cares enough) to make these judgments. In 2025, four in five Canadians saw news or information they suspected to be misleading or false and almost half reported they were finding it hard to distinguish true from false. Repeated exposure to conflicting claims, manipulated content, and even confusing content can lead to a lack of confidence in one’s own ability to discern what is true and what matters. They might also lose confidence in the institutions meant to support them. Elections Alberta, like its provincial, territorial and local-level counterparts, is not equipped to address foreign influence, misinformation and disinformation.

This is compounded by an existing lack of trust in institutions. DisinfoWatch found that one in three Canadians is alarmed about separatism but distrust the ability of politicians to address it. They also found that one in four Canadians holds at least one contradictory belief about separatism, foreign involvement, or the response. This points to an information environment that fosters the coexistence of distrust and competing claims.

Disbelief Can Lead to Disengagement

The pathway through a fragmented information environment does not always end in belief or disbelief; it can also lead to distrust and disengagement.

There are mechanisms that can make our information environment safer, more trustworthy, and more transparent. Platforms can label synthetic or altered content, moderate harmful material, and provide information on how content is distributed. Rules can be established for platform accountability. Governments can tackle foreign interference and support credible journalism. The federal government is addressing platform accountability through the Safe Social Media Act and foreign interference through recent amendments to the Canada Elections Act. The former is at second reading; the latter received Royal Assent before the summer recess. Canada has also created a dedicated foreign influence registry, overseen by an independent commissioner. 

These measures are important and, in many cases, long overdue.

Shared Responsibility

Who bears responsibility: governments, platforms, news organizations, educators and post-secondary institutions, or civil society? The clear answer is that all have a role to play.

For example, election management bodies exist to deliver elections, not to arbitrate the entire information environment surrounding them. Community organizations such as libraries and settlement agencies are often closer to people navigating these confusing information environments and may already have trusted relationships that institutions cannot quickly build or maintain. People need to be met where they are.

This was evident in the Gen(Z)AI citizens’ assembly process, led by the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy and the Dialogue on Technology Project at SFU. Young participants described the information environment they experience: declining access to credible information and sometimes reaching a point where they no longer try to determine what is real or fake. Their response, in the form of policy recommendations, called for platform accountability and design changes. But the process also gave young people a chance to share their thoughts and concerns, build community, deliberate, and have a stake in the conversation. This process is itself a form of resilience and trust-building.

This matters because Canadians are increasingly encountering political information via platforms that were never designed to function as democratic institutions and lack the safeguards needed to do so. Among Canadians aged 18 to 24, 94% use YouTube, 91% use Instagram and 65% use TikTok. Among those over 24, YouTube reaches 73% and Instagram 63%.

Building and Maintaining Confidence

When the House returns on September 21, recent legislation and other government measures should be evaluated not only by whether they reduce harm, but also by whether they strengthen trust and democratic confidence.

Making the information environment more trustworthy is important, but it will not solve every problem. We must also rebuild trust and ensure that people, especially those most vulnerable to manipulation or exclusion, feel confident enough to participate in our democracy.

The October 19 referendum is a reminder of what is at stake. Speaking about the online information environment, Danielle Smith said: “I trust that Albertans are able to do that research. I trust that they can identify sources that are credible and sources that are not.” In the current information environment, that is easier said than done.