The changing landscape of information generation and flows across the digital has contributed to increased distortion of information. Unreliable information flows deepen the social divide to the detriment of vulnerable and marginalised groups, further adversely affecting democratic values of choice, autonomy and dignity.

Aapti’s prior enquiries have explored the landscape of information disorders – misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation amongst others, that jeopardise trust in information systems. However, understanding nuances of varied information disorders to combat harm can be rather complex for viewers/consumers of information, necessitating a deeper inquiry into building resilience situated in code and communities. Safeguarding the integrity of information ecosystems not only requires targeted efforts towards harm detection and combat, but a robust understanding of cornerstones of a healthy information ecosystem. This ecosystem is characterised by resilient socio-technical infrastructures that enable the flow of accurate, reliable and verifiable information.

To build a discourse on this, Aapti hosted a virtual event that explored alternative pathways of resilience that reside in social infrastructures and innovative models of technology that drive localised and context-based solutions. We believe that a digital space that upholds values of information integrity, solutions should move beyond traditional regulation (or the threat of it) to socio-technical pathways of code and community, where information is created and consumed.

A sneak peak into our event

We attempted to adopt a holistic and ecosystem-level approach to information integrity– one that is positive and inclusive. We broke out into four rooms, with each room exploring a key theme.

Building Local Communities

While information flows within the realms of borderless digital spaces, they are not devoid of cultural and geographical contexts and nuances. Regrettably, local contexts are either lost and/or distorted as they move across multiple devices, platforms and geographies. In this breakout room, participants highlighted the need to ground solutions in localised, trust-based networks. They reiterated how these systems, suchas community radios, assist local populations in understanding information better and provide nuanced cultural understanding to situations and concerns.

Some participants noted that digital safety content is often too complex or technical. There was a strong call to use simpler language, raise awareness, and share information in ways that respect privacy and local culture. Local communication formats were seen as more effective and trusted.

Further, we assessed the merit in adopting localised solutions to maintain integrity of information by Big-T ech. While it was widely acknowledged that Big T ech encourages participation from marginalised and underserved communities, systems continue to perpetuate biases that prioritise English speaking, educated and upper caste communities in India. This is most witnessed in platform design, specifically features that deploy AI, which perpetuate stereotypes on gender and caste, as well as in application of platform rules, that are usually not available in local languages, though are moderated globally. As they began problem solving, participants suggested adopting community-led design, more support for open-source tools, and the use of regulations to guide platforms toward better, and more inclusive practices.

Fostering Societal Resilience

The conversation began by unpacking the term societal resilience. While some participants defined resilience as the ability to recover from technology-facilitated harm, others felt it also included the capacity to discern fact from fiction and make informed decisions. Resilience is subjective—shaped by individual and communitycontexts, where the same solution may not yield similar experiences for all.

A shared concern was the top-down nature of current information ecosystems, where platforms hold greater control over information flows, while users have limited agency to shape narratives. In response, participants highlighted the importance of embedding inclusive, culturally grounded platform design, and reiterated the need to understand the role of platforms in bolstering societal resilience—a space where efforts are currently led by civil society.

Collaboration through co-creation emerged as a key solution to foster trust. Digital platforms, when reimagined to include voices of diverse stakeholders—especially when local communities are central to the development of the platform, embeds societal resilience. Finally, the group explored long-term strategies, including embedding information literacy in education, creating offline touchpoints, and empowering local journalism to sustain bottom-up resilience.

Safeguarding Decentralised Pathways

Trust in platforms is highest when users believe that they have control, their privacy is respected, and their community dynamics are valued. While adoption and transparency matter, trust is also deeply political and context-specific in the context of decentralized platforms.

Participants discussed alternate governance models like middleware and crowd sourced shields. While the specifics of such an approach require further deliberation, they also highlighted the need to ensure that suggested approaches do not cement existing echo-chambers or reduce users’ controls through limited APIs. There was emphasis on limiting the State’s role to broader governance considerations and leaving more specific concerns such as those of content moderation to other actors.

The group also highlighted usability, familiarity, and intuitive design as central to adoption. Embedding these into platform design by default builds trust. One major flaw that exists across digital platforms is the user’s limited ability to verify basic information, such as sources or genuineness of an account. By merely fixing this gap, users can be empowered to make informed decisions on whether to rely on any piece of information or not.

Bolstering technical resilience

The session opened with a deep dive into the limitations of current tools, highlighting gaps in language, data diversity, and real-world applicability. Participants emphasized the importance of designing with end-user needs in mind, especially across diverse contexts.

While discussing integration and adoption of technical tools, the conversation surfaced barriers such as tool literacy, ethical deployment, and limited usability. They discussed the value of technical tools such as C2PA that helps users in understanding the source of the information—whether it has been AI-generated or edited, that can aid in verifying information. Existing models like whatsapp tiplines were flagged as promising but dependent on strong human workflows.

Looking ahead, the participants reflected on the need for upstream, collaborative approaches. Industry-regulator dialogues and emerging frameworks like C2PA were seen as key to shaping the future. Throughout, the call was clear: resilience must be co-built, technically sound, ethically guided, and deeply contextual.

Reimagine resilience within and bridge gaps between Code and Communities

Strengthening information integrity in the digital world calls for enhanced resilience to be embedded within socio-technical infrastructures of Code and Communities. This resilience necessitates greater collaboration amongst stakeholders situated within Code, such as technical experts, platforms and developer companies, as well as Communities, such as civil society, media literacy and fact checking organisations, and end users. Only then, can information be more accurate, reliable and verifiable, promoting values of information integrity and fostering a healthy information ecosystem.

What next?

• For technologists and platforms: Build tools and embed platform design that prioritises accessibility and localised driven solutions that enable users to make informed decisions regarding integrity of information.
• For civil society: Enable platforms to reflect cultural realities, foster trust, and amplify diverse voices and work closely with communities to build capacity to mitigate informational harm.
• For users: Engage critically with information, ask for verifiable sources, and participate in shaping healthier information ecosystems.