Information Integrity and Public Trust
The Global Risks Forum (GRF)
Information governance sets the rules for what may be said, shared, collected and withheld. Freedom of expression, access to information, media freedom and privacy are protected rights with permissible limits. States and platforms both restrict information, and both can overreach. This page sets out how information rights are protected and limited, the records that show it, and the institutions that decide.
GRF · In development · service level R0
Information rights are the protected rights to freedom of expression, access to information, media freedom and privacy, with limits allowed only under a legal test. States and platforms both restrict information. Legislatures, courts, information commissioners and platforms hold the decisions.
For information governance rights, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density, night lights and flood water, framed on Eastern Europe; 3 further NASA layers wait in the list.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 3
People and hazards, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
For information governance rights, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density, night lights and flood water, framed on Eastern Europe; 3 further NASA layers wait in the list.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date; indicators, not assessments of any place; claim ceiling INTEGRATED.
Layers and dates
The working screen behind this subject: its structure, terms and states. Names are placeholders and values illustrative.
Information governance rights · Crisis information cell · Week 18
| Tap water poisoned after flood | 75 | High | False | Correction out |
| Shelters charging fees | 32 | Medium | False | Drafting |
| Dam about to fail | 48 | High | Checking | Holding line |
| Aid only for registered voters | 41 | Medium | False | Prebunked |
Rights, free expression and public safeguards. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
International law allows restrictions on expression only when provided by law, necessary and proportionate for a legitimate aim. Vague laws invite arbitrary enforcement.
Platform terms of service decide much of what can be said online, with little due process. Regulation adds transparency and appeal rights in some jurisdictions.
Freedom of information laws give rights to public records, but exemptions, delays and fees limit their use.
Strategic lawsuits, surveillance and physical threats deter reporting. Protections such as anti-SLAPP laws and source protection shape what is published.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Three-part test | The requirement that limits on expression be provided by law, pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary and proportionate. |
| SLAPP | A strategic lawsuit against public participation, brought mainly to silence or burden critics. |
| Freedom of information law | A law giving people a right to request records held by public bodies, with defined exemptions. |
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freedom of information law in force | yes or no | on change | Global Right to Information Rating | OFFICIAL |
| Right to information legal framework score | score | on change | Global Right to Information Rating | ESTIMATED |
| Press freedom score | score | annual | RSF World Press Freedom Index | ESTIMATED |
| Content removal orders by governments | count | half-yearly | Platform transparency reports | REPORTED |
| Anti-SLAPP protections in law | yes or no | on change | Legislation | OFFICIAL |
| Appeals of moderation decisions and reversals | count and share reversed | half-yearly | Platform and DSA records | REPORTED |
The topic as a computational graph: named sources feed the methods, an evidence review gates the outputs, and the decisions stay with the authorities that hold them.
Fig. 02Nodes carry their type, two metric rows and a state; connectors show what feeds what; dashed frames name the owners; the timeline is the cadence. Design of the pipeline, not a record of a run.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| Global Right to Information Rating | Assessment of access to information laws | Free to read, terms to check |
| RSF World Press Freedom Index | Press freedom assessments by country | Free to read, RSF terms |
| UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression reports | Analysis of expression and information rights | Free, UN terms |
| Platform transparency reports | Government removal requests and moderation | Free to read, terms per platform |
| European Court of Human Rights case law (HUDOC) | Judgments on expression and information | Free, Council of Europe terms |
Information Integrity and Public Trust prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Legislatures | What limits on expression and duties on platforms the law sets | Human rights standards and comparative laws |
| Courts | Whether a restriction on expression is lawful | Case law; the page serves context only |
| Information commissioners | Whether records must be released | Freedom of information practice |
| Platforms | What rules govern speech and how appeals work | Transparency and appeal records |
Experts in information governance ask how to address harm without suppressing rights.
International human rights law protects freedom of expression and access to information, allowing restrictions only where they are provided by law, pursue a legitimate aim and are necessary and proportionate. Broad laws against false information, especially during emergencies, can be used to silence journalists, critics and minorities. Content moderation at scale makes errors in both directions, removing legitimate speech and missing harmful content.
Safeguards include clear legal definitions, independent oversight, transparency about decisions, the right to appeal and attention to how measures affect different groups. Approaches that focus on systems, such as transparency and risk assessment, are often seen as less intrusive than approaches that target specific content.
Comparing laws against human rights standards. Implementation may differ from law.
Studying data on content decisions. Reports are self-reported and inconsistent.
Assessing effects of measures on rights and harms with social and behavioural science. Effects are hard to measure.
Recording cases of overreach or harm. Cases may not be representative.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.