Safeguarding Elections in the Digital Age

The document evaluates various digital interventions to protect elections, including content moderation, algorithmic adjustments, and transparency measures. It highlights a significant gap in data access for researchers and a geographic imbalance in mitigation efforts, which primarily focus on Western contexts. The authors argue for a multi-stakeholder approach and standardized data access to improve the efficacy of electoral safeguarding.

• Online platforms are vulnerable to misuse due to design choices, specifically the algorithmic amplification of 'borderline content'—material that is emotionally charged or divisive but remains just below the threshold of illegality.
• Content moderation resources are heavily skewed toward English-language content; for instance, leaked documents indicate that 87 percent of Meta's global spending on classifying misinformation is dedicated to the US.
• Algorithmic de-amplification has proven highly effective in reducing engagement with misinformation, with one study showing a reduction of more than 50 percent when links to known misinformation sites were downranked.
• The efficacy of political advertisement libraries is limited by inconsistent data formats, missing information, and poor accessibility, making them more theoretically useful than practically effective for transparency.
• Interstitials—warnings that 'screen' content before a user accesses it—are generally more effective at decreasing belief in misinformation than simple labels, due to the friction they introduce to the user experience.
• Pre-bunking through short animations and gamification can build psychological resilience against disinformation, though its effectiveness varies by region; for example, it showed no significant impact in India or Singapore.
• Geo-blocking of sanctioned state media, such as Russian outlets in the EU, has led to significant drops in traffic, but is often circumvented via mirror websites or alternative domains.
• Research into electoral integrity is disproportionately focused on the US and Europe, while platforms often limit their specific election integrity measures to these regions, neglecting the Global Majority.
• Independent research is severely hindered by platforms restricting API access and the rise of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) aimed at intimidating researchers.

APA

Rolfe, T., Schwertheim, H., Döring, M., & Jacobs, E. (2024). Safeguarding Elections in the Digital Age. Institute for Strategic Dialogue. https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Safeguarding-Elections-in-the-Digital-Age.pdf

Chicago

Rolfe, Terra, Helena Schwertheim, Melanie Döring, and Ellen Jacobs. Safeguarding Elections in the Digital Age. Institute for Strategic Dialogue, 2024. https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Safeguarding-Elections-in-the-Digital-Age.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Rolfe |first1=Terra |last2=Schwertheim |first2=Helena |last3=Döring |first3=Melanie |last4=Jacobs |first4=Ellen |title=Safeguarding Elections in the Digital Age |publisher=Institute for Strategic Dialogue |date=2024 |url=https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Safeguarding-Elections-in-the-Digital-Age.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{rolfe2024safeguarding, author = {Rolfe, Terra and Schwertheim, Helena and Döring, Melanie and Jacobs, Ellen}, title = {{Safeguarding Elections in the Digital Age}}, institution = {Institute for Strategic Dialogue}, year = {2024}, url = {https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Safeguarding-Elections-in-the-Digital-Age.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }