Dr Alwin Tan, GAICD, MBBS, FRACS, EMBA (Melbourne Business School)

Senior Surgeon | Governance Leader | HealthTech Co-founder |
Harvard Medical School — AI in Healthcare |
Australian Institute of Company Directors — GAICD graduate |
University of Oxford — Sustainable Enterprise

By the Institute for Systems Integrity (ISI)

Abstract

Misinformation and disinformation are commonly framed as problems of false content. This framing is incomplete. The deeper systemic risk lies in the erosion of shared reality—the minimum level of common understanding required for coordinated decision-making across societies, institutions, and systems.

This paper reframes information disorder as a systems integrity failure, driven by digital amplification, cognitive vulnerabilities, institutional mistrust, and platform incentives that prioritise engagement over accuracy. The central risk is not merely exposure to falsehood, but the degradation of signal quality, context, and trust, which together impair judgement, governance, and collective action.

The paper examines the mechanisms through which shared reality degrades, evaluates current interventions, and argues for a shift toward information integrity as a core governance priority.

1. Introduction: From False Information to System Failure

The modern information environment is often described as saturated with misinformation and disinformation. While accurate, this description understates the scale of the challenge.

The issue is not simply that false information exists.

It is that the systems through which individuals and institutions form judgement are no longer reliably aligned with truth.

Misinformation—false information shared without intent—and disinformation—deliberately misleading content—are symptoms of a broader condition (Wardle and Derakhshan, 2017; WHO, 2024). That condition is a structural shift in how information is produced, distributed, and interpreted.

In this environment, accuracy competes with speed, context competes with simplicity, and verification competes with virality.

The result is not only confusion.
It is the gradual erosion of shared reality.

2. Shared Reality as a System Property

Shared reality is rarely defined explicitly, yet it underpins all functioning systems.

It is the implicit agreement on:

• what constitutes evidence
• which sources are credible
• how claims are evaluated
• how disagreement is resolved

Historically, institutions such as journalism, science, and governance provided stabilising functions—filtering, validating, and contextualising information.

These functions introduced friction into information flows.

Friction slowed dissemination, enabled verification, and preserved coherence.

Digital systems have removed much of this friction.

In doing so, they have altered the conditions under which shared reality is maintained.

3. Structural Shifts in the Information Environment

Three structural shifts define the current landscape:

3.1 Disintermediation

Information flows directly between actors, bypassing traditional gatekeepers.

3.2 Fragmentation

Audiences are segmented into parallel information environments, often shaped by algorithmic curation.

3.3 Acceleration

Information spreads faster than it can be verified or contextualised.

These shifts weaken the mechanisms that historically aligned perception with evidence (Kavanagh and Rich, 2018).

The consequence is not merely disagreement, but divergence in perceived reality.

4. Signal Degradation: Why Information Quality Declines

The degradation of shared reality can be understood as a problem of signal integrity.

Three interrelated failures are evident:

4.1 Signal Distortion

Information becomes altered as it moves through networks, losing nuance and context.

4.2 Amplification Bias

Content that is novel, emotional, or identity-reinforcing is preferentially amplified.

4.3 Interpretation Failure

Audiences lack the context, trust, or capacity to accurately interpret information.

Empirical evidence demonstrates that false information spreads faster and more widely than true information online, driven primarily by human behaviour rather than automated systems (Vosoughi, Roy and Aral, 2018).

This suggests that the system does not merely transmit information—it selectively amplifies distortion.

5. Cognitive and Social Dynamics

Information is not processed in isolation.

Belief formation is shaped by:

• prior beliefs and identity
• emotional salience
• cognitive load
• trust in institutions

(Ecker et al., 2022)

Crucially, information is often shared not for accuracy, but for its social function—to signal belonging, express emotion, or reinforce group identity.

This introduces a fundamental tension:

Information systems prioritise engagement,
while decision systems require accuracy.

6. From Misinformation to Synthetic Reality

Recent technological developments introduce an additional layer of complexity.

Advances in generative AI enable the creation of:

• lifelike synthetic video
• cloned voices
• simulated experts
• scalable, personalised narratives

This represents a shift from information disorder to reality simulation.

The risk is no longer limited to false claims.
It includes the manufacture of credible authority.

As visual realism increases, the ability to distinguish authentic from synthetic content decreases.

This further destabilises shared reality by undermining perceptual trust.

7. System-Level Consequences

The erosion of shared reality has implications across multiple domains.

7.1 Public Health

Misinformation influences risk perception, behaviour, and adherence to interventions (WHO, 2024).

7.2 Democratic Systems

Disinformation undermines trust in institutions, processes, and outcomes (OECD, 2024).

7.3 Organisational Governance

Distorted information flows lead to:

• delayed escalation
• impaired decision-making
• increased systemic risk

In each case, the core issue is not simply false information, but degraded signal quality within decision systems.

8. Limitations of Current Interventions

Existing responses remain fragmented.

Fact-checking and debunking

Effective but reactive, and unable to scale with the speed of dissemination.

Prebunking (inoculation)

Promising, but dependent on reach and sustained engagement (van der Linden et al., 2022).

Media literacy

Necessary, but insufficient when deployed in isolation.

Platform moderation

Important, but constrained by concerns regarding proportionality, bias, and freedom of expression (UNESCO, 2018).

These approaches address components of the problem,
but not the system as a whole.

9. Reframing the Challenge: Information Integrity

A shift is emerging from controlling misinformation to strengthening information integrity (OECD, 2024).

Information integrity emphasises:

• reliability of information flows
• preservation of context
• transparency of systems
• accountability of actors

The objective is not to eliminate all falsehood.

It is to ensure that systems support accurate judgement under conditions of uncertainty.

10. Implications for Governance

Restoring shared reality requires governance approaches that operate at the system level.

Key priorities include:

• strengthening institutional credibility
• improving transparency in content distribution systems
• aligning platform incentives with information quality
• integrating information integrity into risk governance frameworks
• addressing synthetic media risks explicitly

Importantly, responses must balance effectiveness with the protection of fundamental rights.

11. Conclusion

Misinformation and disinformation are not isolated anomalies within otherwise stable systems.

They are indicators of a deeper structural shift.

The central risk is not simply that false information circulates.

It is that the systems through which societies interpret reality no longer reliably preserve signal integrity.

Without shared reality:

• trust weakens
• governance degrades
• decision-making becomes unstable

The challenge, therefore, is not only to correct falsehoods.

It is to restore the conditions under which truth can be:

• recognised
• trusted
• and acted upon

Harvard References

Broda, E. and Strömbäck, J. (2024) Annals of the International Communication Association, 48(2), pp. 139–166.

Ecker, U.K.H. et al. (2022) Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(1), pp. 13–29.

Kavanagh, J. and Rich, M.D. (2018) Truth Decay. RAND Corporation.

Lazer, D.M.J. et al. (2018) Science, 359(6380), pp. 1094–1096.

Lewandowsky, S. et al. (2012) Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), pp. 106–131.

OECD (2024) Facts Not Fakes. OECD Publishing.

UNESCO (2018) Journalism, ‘Fake News’ and Disinformation.

van der Linden, S. et al. (2022) Science Advances, 8(27).

Vosoughi, S., Roy, D. and Aral, S. (2018) Science, 359(6380), pp. 1146–1151.

Wardle, C. and Derakhshan, H. (2017) Council of Europe.

WHO (2024) Disinformation and public health.