Many thanks to the Vancouver Sun for publishing my op-ed (image above).
You can read it here at the Vancouver Sun website, where it displays well. If you can’t see it at first, you can create a free account.
If the link gets broken in future, further below is the text.
Meantime, here is are two infographic, which are not part of the op-ed, but may be useful.
What does this mean for the Oct. 17 municipal elections? If a claim makes you angry, that is a reason to pause, not to share. Check the source. Look for original documents. Ask ‘where does this actually come from?’ before sharing
By Dave Thompson. Published Jun 03, 2026
A landmark 2018 MIT study found that false news online spreads six times faster than accurate information. Ask where a claim comes from before sharing, writes Dave Thompson. Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY /AFP via Getty Images
“A lie travels halfway around the world before the truth can tie its shoelaces.” — Modern proverb
Residents in B.C. go to the municipal election polls on Oct. 17.
Between now and then, residents will make up their minds about who should lead their cities for the next four years. Those decisions deserve to be made on solid ground.
Will they be?
We are living through a crisis in the quality of public information. Researchers are documenting the pollution of the information environment with misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories. The findings are not encouraging.
Misinformation is false content spread without intent to deceive — for example, social media posts shared and “liked” without checking. Disinformation is false content spread deliberately Conspiracy theories are a type of these, structured so that counter-evidence confirms rather than refutes them (as in, “But that’s what they want you to think”).
These categories can blur, and the intent behind a false claim may be impossible to determine. But the effect on public discourse is corrosive regardless.
A landmark 2018 Massachusetts Institute of Technology study found that false news online spreads six times faster than accurate information.
To understand why, watch The Social Dilemma. In that documentary, designers of social media platforms explain how they built systems optimized for engagement above everything else. Outrage, fear, and moral indignation are the most engaging emotions.
Keep ‘em engaged, keep ‘em enraged, and keep ‘em on the platform seeing the ads. That’s a social media business model.
Repeated exposure compounds the problem; the more often we encounter a claim, the more credible it feels. Platforms that surface the same content again and again are degrading our collective ability to distinguish fact from fiction.
All this corrodes public discourse directly. It also allows bad actors to dismiss genuine information as fake. Researchers call this the “liar’s dividend.”
And now comes AI, accelerating the production and spread of mis/disinformation.
We are only at the beginning of understanding what all this means for democratic discourse.
Much of this comes from south of the border, the land of “alternative facts.” However, we are not immune in Canada, and it’s increasingly an issue at all levels of government.
Local democracy is especially vulnerable. Municipal issues are varied and technically complex. Zoning bylaws, parking regulations, housing policy, transportation planning and other topics are easy to misrepresent in a tweet and hard to correct and fully explain in an essay.
Some are increasingly getting their “information” from social media, and local journalism has felt the resulting squeeze. Fewer reporters means less solid information, and it’s often overwhelmed by a sea of social media mis/disinformation.
There are a number of Canadian initiatives attempting to fix this. MediaSmarts, the Media Ecosystem Observatory, the Information Integrity Lab and others provided analysis and tools to push back.
For instance, if a claim makes you angry, that is a reason to pause, not to share. Check the source. Look for original documents, city staff reports, council minutes, and candidate platforms. Asking “where does this actually come from?” before sharing.
What does this mean for the Oct. 17 election?
B.C. voters deserve a campaign in which candidates are evaluated on their actual records and platforms, not on distortions and fabrications.
Democratic governance doesn’t require everyone to agree. Vigorous disagreement about values, priorities, and policies is good and it’s healthy. It’s how democracies work through hard problems.
But that disagreement needs a shared factual terrain. When that terrain is poisoned by false claims, conspiracy thinking, and algorithmically amplified outrage, it becomes harder for voters to evaluate candidates, and harder for communities to solve real problems together.
The information environment is a commons. Residents want accurate information and want to make good decisions. The least we can do — candidates, media, and citizens alike — is take that seriously between now and Oct. 17.
Dave Thompson is a Victoria city councillor and capital regional district director. The views expressed in this commentary are his own, and not those of the city or the district.