Misinformation represents a complex, urgent sociotechnical problem, reflecting an assemblage of: synchronous and asynchronous communications distributed across multiple platforms and systems; regulatory regimes and technical, media, and telecommunications infrastructure; and intentionally deceptive or manipulative actors, as well as unwitting accomplices.

Research has addressed many aspects of misinformation, from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, including information science, computer science, management, law, political science, public policy, journalism, communications, psychology, and sociology. From characterizing and conceptualizing to the development of taxonomies and ontologies, from automated detection and filtering to content moderation strategies, and from analysis of individual experiences with misinformation to mapping the prevalence and dissemination of misinformation, we have a good sense of what misinformation is, the state of human and technical identification, and social experiences with it. But what can we do about it?

In a recent ARIST review, “Sociotechnical Governance of Misinformation,” we collected and systematically examined 277 peer-reviewed publications examining different aspects of misinformation governance, considering the breadth and depth of sociotechnical approaches to governance. We analyzed the complexity and impact of misinformation as a governance challenge, what has been managed and governed relative to misinformation, the institutional structure of different governance parameters, and empirically identified sources of success and failure in different governance models.

We found that by comparison to other aspects of misinformation research, governance research, much like governance approaches in practice, lags behind the issues, both in volume and responsiveness. Further, very few papers offered multimodal governance suggestions, but those that did, incorporating policy or law, social norms, market-oriented approaches, and technical solutions, offer the most robust path forward. The problems around misinformation are such that one law or one platform-level policy will not be enough to intervene meaningfully. Robust governance interventions require alignment between community norms and expectations in context with platform design, policy or regulatory oversight, and changes to the current incentive structures to produce and share misinformation, as well as for platforms to promote this content via algorithms, given the engagement it produces.

In addition to the multidisciplinary nature and diversity of approaches of existing research on misinformation governance, our analysis reveals disciplinary siloing, uneven geographic coverage, and other gaps. We offer a sociotechnical model to better support interdisciplinary and information science research on misinformation governance, aiming to encourage more empirical analysis and theoretical examination. Ultimately, our goal is to inform and support improved misinformation management and governance by citizens, policymakers, information professionals, and platforms themselves.

There’s no time like the present to contribute to solving misinformation challenges. Addressing this urgent need will require the contributions of many experts and a strong resolve from those with decision-making power. Without a committed effort, misinformation will only become a larger problem.