Search Climate Insights Directory

The 2025 IPIE expert survey reveals growing pessimism regarding the global information environment, with 72% of experts expecting further deterioration. While social networks are seen as drivers of both political polarization and engagement, researchers face significant barriers including self-censorship and harassment. The report advocates for systemic safeguards in the AI era, such as mandatory content labeling and algorithmic audits, to protect the integrity of information supply chains.

The 2025 IPIE Expert Survey reveals increasing pessimism about the global information environment, with 72% of experts expecting further degradation. While social media is seen to both increase political participation and exacerbate polarization, there is a strong expert consensus on the need for AI-generated content labeling and algorithmic auditing. Additionally, the report highlights significant systemic pressures on researchers, including harassment and self-censorship, particularly in developing economies.

The 2025 IPIE Expert Survey reveals increasing pessimism regarding the global information environment, with 72% of experts expecting it to worsen. While social media is seen as a driver of both political polarization and participation, researchers face significant barriers, including harassment and self-censorship. Experts advocate for specific AI safeguards, such as mandatory labeling of synthetic content and periodic algorithmic audits, to protect the reliability of information supply chains.

The 2025 Expert Survey on the Global Information Environment reveals growing pessimism, with 72% of experts expecting the information environment to worsen. The report highlights a complex relationship with social media, where platforms are seen to increase polarization while promoting political participation. It also documents significant 'chilling effects' on researchers, with 73% reporting harassment, self-censorship, or funding fears. To safeguard epistemic security in the AI era, experts recommend clear labeling of AI-generated content and regular algorithmic audits.

The 2025 IPIE expert survey reveals a growing pessimism regarding the global information environment, with 72% of experts believing it is deteriorating. The document highlights the dual nature of social media—increasing both political polarization and engagement—and reports significant pressures on researchers, including self-censorship and harassment. It advocates for 'epistemic security' through measures such as clear labeling of AI-generated content and regular algorithmic audits.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denialism to 'strategic skepticism,' where powerful economic and political actors sow doubt about the feasibility and cost of climate solutions. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this misinformation, which is disseminated through corporate reports, lobbies, and social media, ultimately eroding public trust and delaying climate action. The document recommends four key policy levers: standardized carbon reporting legislation, litigation against greenwashing, the creation of multi-stakeholder coalitions, and enhanced science and media literacy.

The International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) urges the Australian government to implement mandatory standardized climate disclosure to stop greenwashing, create transparent tracking systems for climate communication funding to expose hidden influence networks, and integrate climate information literacy and 'inoculation' strategies into education curricula to build public resilience.

The 2024 IPIE expert survey of 412 researchers across 66 countries reveals a growing pessimism about the global information environment, with 63% expecting it to deteriorate. Experts identify the availability of accurate information and diversity of opinion as the most critical features of a healthy information environment. Social media platform owners and governments are viewed as the most severe threats. While generative AI is seen as a tool for both hope and concern, 63% of experts fear its potential to amplify disinformation and harassment. The report advocates for supporting free and independent media and improving data access for researchers to build resilience.

The document outlines a proposed international framework for AI auditing designed to move beyond current fragmented approaches. It emphasizes the need for common standards, auditor independence, and the inclusion of diverse stakeholders to mitigate systemic harms, including human rights violations and environmental degradation. The framework is structured around seven key characteristics: audit scope, auditor roles, stakeholder engagement, context-specific standards, evidence requirements, auditing methodologies, and post-audit activities.

The International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) proposes a global AI auditing framework to address the lack of consistent standards and the tendency of current audits to overlook impacts on the global majority. The framework defines seven key functions: audit scope, auditor roles, stakeholder engagement, context-appropriate criteria, evidence requirements, methodology, and post-audit activities. It emphasizes the need for auditor independence, transparent results, and the inclusion of environmental and labor impacts to protect human rights and collective well-being.

The 2024 IPIE expert survey reveals a growing pessimism about the global information environment, with 63% of experts expecting it to worsen. Key threats are identified as social media platform owners and government actors. While generative AI is seen as a tool for improving content detection and reporting, experts primarily fear its role in amplifying misinformation, harassment, and bias. The consensus emphasizes that accessibility to accurate information and diversity of speech are fundamental to a healthy information environment.

The 2024 IPIE expert survey of 412 researchers across 66 countries indicates a growing pessimism about the global information environment, with 63% expecting it to worsen. Experts identify social media platform owners and governments as the primary threats. While generative AI is viewed as a tool for improving journalism and content detection, there is significant concern regarding its role in amplifying harassment, bias, and misinformation. The report emphasizes the necessity of supporting independent media and improving data access for interdisciplinary research.

The 2024 IPIE expert survey of 412 researchers across 66 countries identifies the availability of accurate information and diversity of voices as the primary features of a healthy information environment. Social media platform owners, governments, and politicians are cited as the most significant threats. While generative AI is viewed as a tool that could potentially improve content detection and journalism, 63% of experts express significant concern regarding its potential to amplify misinformation, harassment, and bias. Experts in developing countries report higher levels of concern regarding AI and platform-based threats but show greater optimism toward interventions like fact-checking and media literacy.

The report analyzes the fragmented ecosystem of AI audits, distinguishing between organizational conformity assessments and academic performance evaluations. It details the roles of internal, external, and community auditors, the methodologies used—such as input variation and benchmarking—and the current state of enforceable regulations in the US, Canada, EU, UK, and China. The document argues for a more diverse, trustworthy audit ecosystem with better data access and a focus on global impacts, including environmental and labor concerns, to move beyond 'null compliance'.

The 2024 IPIE expert survey of 412 researchers across 66 countries identifies the availability of accurate information and diversity of voices as essential for a healthy information environment. Social media platform owners and politicians are viewed as the primary threats. While generative AI is seen as a risk—particularly regarding AI-generated videos—there is moderate hope for its use in content detection and journalistic support. Experts generally predict the information environment will worsen in 2025, emphasizing the need for more research outside the USA and Western democracies.

The IPIE argues that AI audits are the primary mechanism to operationalize governance, moving beyond simple transparency to ensure human rights compliance and the fair distribution of AI benefits. It proposes a global audit framework based on universal parameters—including fairness, transparency, and technical robustness—and offers the IPIE's scientific expertise to help the UN develop these international standards and research functions.

The IPIE submission argues for the reduction of bureaucratic barriers and the strengthening of researcher rights under the Digital Services Act's data access framework. Based on a survey of scientific affiliates, the document identifies risks such as political capture of Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs), lack of transparency in data inventories, and restrictive interpretations of 'other sources' of data. Key recommendations include the implementation of a fast-track process for time-sensitive data, mandatory researcher participation in dispute settlements, and the requirement for DSCs to use English as a mandatory communication language to ensure cross-border scientific coordination.

The International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) recommends amending the European Commission's draft qualitative template for DSA transparency reports to better capture risk mitigation data. The IPIE argues that content moderation is fundamentally a risk mitigation measure and that transparency reports should explicitly include information on content labelling, corrective information, and the specific parameters of automated moderation tools. This would bridge the gap between general transparency obligations (Articles 15 and 42) and the systemic risk assessment requirements (Articles 34 and 35) for very large online platforms and search engines, facilitating faster access to data for scientific researchers.

The report analyzes the current AI audit ecosystem, identifying critical gaps in auditor independence, data access, and the failure to account for global sociotechnical impacts. It uses New York City's Local Law 144 as a case study to illustrate how regulatory-driven audits often prioritize transparency over actual harm mitigation. To address these issues, the authors propose a comprehensive Global AI Auditing Framework that emphasizes multidisciplinary teams, participatory stakeholder engagement, and the inclusion of labor and environmental criteria to ensure accountability across the AI supply chain.

The International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) proposes a comprehensive global AI auditing framework to address the lack of common standards in AI inspection. The framework emphasizes the need for auditor independence, stakeholder engagement, and the inclusion of environmental and labor impacts. It provides a seven-step approach covering audit scope, auditor roles, context identification, criteria development, evidence collection, methodology, and post-audit transparency to protect human rights and collective wellbeing, particularly for marginalized communities in the majority world.