• Funders and networks offer capacity-building and financial support to civil society organizations and fact checkers working to combat information disorder. • Governments in the region have launched a variety of initiatives as well. Some government departments have their own fact-checking units and/or are involved in media and digital literacy initiatives, sometimes in collaboration with civil society. • Numerous laws have been passed in the countries of the region to curtail information disorder. While much is being done, many of these initiatives face significant challenges: • Many fact-checking and civil society organiza- • • • • • tions in the region have faced difficulties and uncertainties in securing consistent funding and resources, including human resources, for their work. Many organizations have had to look abroad for funding, which often leads to opponents of their work accusing them of being controlled by foreign interests. The nature of platforms can make it difficult to do fact checking. In particular, direct messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Telegram are harder to deal with, since messages are often private. Social media platforms have been accused of not doing enough in Asia, as well as of a lack of consistency and transparency in implementing methods and guidelines. Polarization and psychological biases (for instance along the lines of ethno-religious identities or politics) can adversely affect the efficacy of fact checking and media and digital literacy programs. Few organizations are able to effectively measure the impact of their work, and where methods are in place, they are often rudimentary, for example checking the number of likes or reactions on a social media post about a fact check. Language often poses a barrier, especially in terms of accessing content in languages not widely spoken, as well as finding tools and techniques that are compatible with local languages. In Asia, the lack of independent media has been a significant challenge, limiting the scope for unbiased and accurate reporting. In some instances, media outlets lack the resources to retain journalists, and in certain contexts there is a shortage of well-trained journalists. Profit motives can lead to bad incentives, where sensational stories are chased at the expense of accuracy. 1 I N FO R M ATI O N D I SO R D ER IN THE GLOBA L SOUTH Government initiatives against information disorder have been controversial, as critics contend that governments use the need to combat “fake news” and hate speech as a cover to silence dissent and legitimate criticism of the state. In particular, legislation, which is often vague and expansive, gives the state excessive power to decide what is true and false, opening the door for abuse. While some legislation explicitly targets “fake news,” other types of laws—such as those dealing with defamation, sedition, technology regulation, cybercrime, and online harassment—have been deployed against “false” information. Some of these laws have been in force for a long time, dating back to colonial eras in some cases, and have long had implications for freedom of expression more broadly. Censorship and the ability to practice civil liberties such as freedom of expression affect the form that information disorder takes as well as the efficacy of measures deployed to control it. Where censorship and information control are low, many types of information (of varying degrees of veracity) can spread. In this type of situation the different actors described above also have multiple avenues through which to challenge false and harmful information, regardless of the source. When censorship is high, however, and the state has tighter control over information flows, narratives are dominated by the information supplied and disseminated by the state. Hence, if state organs spread false information, civil society and the media have few avenues to safely and effectively challenge it. The power of the state to influence information disorder can therefore not be ignored. The Asian region shows evidence of varying degrees of press freedom. Table 1 (on the following page) classifies the geographical scope of this report using the color code found in the 2021 World Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders (RSF 2021). For the region considered in this report, Freedom House’s Global Freedom Scores are summarized in Table 2 (on the following page). This report sets out to map the ecosystem of information disorder in Asia, including the main topics involved, the mediums through which information disorder is propagated, the actions being taken by different types of actors to counter information disorder, and the challenges they face. In our discussion we rely on interviews with key actors and region-specific readings and secondary research. Asia – 1 92