Looking at the main fact-checking websites in America and Europe, it’s clear that Donald Trump’s victory didn’t trigger a storm of disinformation. On the left, some conspiracy theories trying to delegitimize Trump’s victory have circulated, but without the support of the Democratic Party they’ve had relatively limited reach. Paradoxically, there have also been cases of disinformation that convey the message that elections have been rigged to damage the Republicans (see here, here, and here, for example). It is almost as if the inertia from past disinformation campaigns – by Trump, his supporters, and even Russia – carried predictable falsehoods about rigged voting in the context of an election they ultimately won.

The absence of a massive disinformation campaign around the latest elections’ results — differently from what had happened in  2020 — depends on a variety of factors, but two seem to be the main ones. Firstly, the Republican victory this time was sharp, whereas the Democratic victory four years ago came down to the wire, after days of counting. Secondly, this time, the winners are the ones responsible for the vast majority of falsehoods circulating before the elections in the United States. Having won, they obviously have no interest in delegitimizing the result.

So, can we say that American elections weren’t influenced by disinformation?

The absence of major cases close to the vote, on the one hand, and the smooth unfolding of the electoral process on the other are certainly positive signs, but taking a broader view, the situation becomes more complex and concerning. As noted after the European elections in June 2024, in recent years disinformation has effectively altered public perception on many issues through a constant hammering of endless false contents (news, photos, videos, memes, etc.). Taken individually, such contents may not be particularly harmful, but collectively they might achieve their purpose (as in “a lie repeated infinitely becomes a truth”).

The dynamic of disinformation narratives, as explained by EDMO, is insidious. These narratives can be defined as messages that clearly emerge from a consistent set of contents that can be demonstrated as false using the fact-checking methodology (for example, news, statements, videos, and images claiming that climate change doesn’t exist). By their nature, these narratives can overlap with legitimate opinions of some part of the public. For example, it’s certainly legitimate to think there are too many immigrants in one’s country or that their cultures of origin aren’t compatible with one’s own. But it’s undeniable that these opinions have also been promoted in recent years by a large amount of demonstrably false content.

The victory of a candidate like Donald Trump, who has spent years building his support by spreading falsehoods on a multitude of topics that are extremely important to voters — from climate change to the Covid-19 pandemic, from migrants to civil rights — is therefore inherently connected to disinformation.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that the outcome of the American vote entirely depended on disinformation, nor that this is necessarily the primary element to consider. But neither can we ignore its importance. Analyzing what happened is crucial to guide present and future decisions in combating disinformation. It’s important to prevent potential major incidents at the last minute and attempts at external manipulation, but that’s not enough. The biggest challenge remains to fight the daily pollution of the information space by disinformation, to prevent substantial amounts of demonstrably false information from piling up behind legitimate opinions without anyone noticing. Without a shared reality to debate, democracy cannot function properly.

Tommaso Canetta, Coordinator of the EDMO fact-checking activities

Photo: Flickr, IoSonoUnaFotoCamera