The advent of social media promised a global democratization of information. But the benefits of this increased access to data have been diluted by a tsunami of misinformation, which in turn has increased social division and conflict. The tools that should have been a fundamental pillar of a new society have become just another weapon. “Right now, we have more conflicts than ever since the end of World War II,” says Steve Killelea, an Australian businessman and philanthropist and founder of the Global Peace Index (GPI), whose latest annual report includes a specific chapter on the role of information technology in a world at war.

Investigations into the havoc wreaked by social media are ongoing. They have already shown that the bosses of these platforms promote conflicting content because it attracts traffic and, with it, advertising. It is a known fact that lies spread faster than truth and that, by the time the truth emerges, the damage has already been done. The crucial influence on democratic elections around the world and on the social exclusion of those who disagree is well documented. The conclusion of a recent study, published in Science Advances, adds one more factor to this worrisome picture: “Competition among news sources over public opinion can incentivize them to resort to misinformation… The findings reveal a tendency to spread hyper-partisan fake news to increase audience participation,” says Arash Amini and his research team at the University of Texas.

Amini explains the pernicious spiral: “The business of getting our attention forces competition between news sources, leading media outlets to use flashier language and provocative storytelling, and even resort to fake news, to increase reader engagement,” he says. However, his research team warns that “although sharing misinformation has become a strategy for audience growth, doing so can damage credibility and lead to long-term disadvantages.”

The team that produces the GPI have documented the influence of social media on global conflicts, especially in relation to radicalization and terrorism. This year, the report stresses the influence of these platforms on polarization and conflict. The GPI states that “a free flow of information is fundamental to peace.” But it flags up the paradox: “We have better communications and more social networks and media than ever before, but we also have low-quality inflammatory or partisan content that deepens social divisions.”

According to Killelea, “On the one hand, people can access accurate information like never before, and most do. But on the other hand, when you look at social media platforms, you see a tendency toward polarization, and some of it comes from the algorithm giving you more of what caught your attention. There is a tendency to offer content in an increasingly daring way because that generates emotions and encourages you to continue, which is what platforms are looking for: they want you to stay as long as possible.” He also flags up the tendency of the user to seek information that reinforces their own morals or values, even if it is biased.

Neither the Texas University researchers nor Killelea single out a particular platform to blame. “We cannot explicitly label news sources that strategically use disinformation as malicious, as their decision-making may have emerged through repeated interactions, making information distortion a natural outcome for hyper-partisan media,” the Texas researchers explain. However, both the Texas researchers and Killelea suggest possible ways of containment. According to Killelea, containment would entail “better regulation of information on the internet.” He is dubious about the owners of the platforms inclination to self-regulate without an enforceable legal framework which must be balanced to guarantee freedom of expression.

Killelea and Amini agree on another containment solution. “Better education is needed to differentiate the accurate from the inaccurate,” says Killelea while Amini adds, “Our results highlight the effectiveness of educational initiatives aimed at improving media literacy and reducing susceptibility. By equipping people with the skills to better assess the credibility of the information they consume, overall susceptibility can be decreased.”

Killelea is optimistic and believes that regulations and user education will be introduced with time, together with an increased sense of responsibility in content moderation by the platforms themselves, despite the current trend. But, he adds, “There will always be nefarious actors.”

Killelea believes in restricting access to social media for children under 12 – in Australia the law currently bans under-16s from having a social media account. He points out that the guarantee of freedom of expression should never include “extreme violence” or “child pornography.” And he concludes that a crackdown in these areas could contribute to a global peace that is more unstable now than it has been in the last 78 years. He has observed, with few exceptions, an annual increase in militarization and conflicts, which generate “massive suffering.” Rather than engage in conflicts that are hard to win, he considers it more effective to “invest in peace.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition