GRF · Information Integrity and Public Trust
Information governance rights
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.
Information governance rights on the record.
Information governance rights: how the risk develops.
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.
Limits need a legal test
International law allows restrictions on expression only when provided by law, necessary and proportionate for a legitimate aim. Vague laws invite arbitrary enforcement.
Private rules govern speech
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.
Access to information is uneven
Freedom of information laws give rights to public records, but exemptions, delays and fees limit their use.
Pressure on journalists
Strategic lawsuits, surveillance and physical threats deter reporting. Protections such as anti-SLAPP laws and source protection shape what is published.
Narrative monitor.
The screen a team would use to follow this subject: its measures, states and decisions. Names are examples and values are illustrative.
Narrative monitor
Information governance rights · Crisis information cell · Week 18
Narratives
| 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 |
Spread
Response protocol
- Detectmonitor
- Verifyprovenance
- Assess harmthreshold
- Respondcorrect · prebunk
- Reporttransparency
What is measured, and how well.
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 | Published statistics |
| 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 | Published statistics |
| Appeals of moderation decisions and reversals | count and share reversed | half-yearly | Platform and DSA records | REPORTED |
Compare instruments: rules, incentives and information.
Three families of instruments side by side against the baseline, each with its own lag and adoption speed, under the coverage and compliance you set; effect sizes are teaching values to replace with evidence. Scenario: named assumptions about the future, not a forecast.
Controls
- Baseline trend of the outcome
- 2.0% a year
- Coverage of the instrument
- 70%
- Compliance
- 75%
- Effect size, against the teaching value
- 100%
- Years ahead
- 20 years
Readouts
- Largest reduction at the horizon
- Regulation
- Its reduction against the baseline
- 21%
Numbers, methods and sources
| Year | Baseline | Regulation | Economic incentive | Information and capacity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 100.0 | 99.5 | 98.8 | 99.1 |
| 1 | 102.0 | 101.2 | 100.1 | 99.8 |
| 2 | 104.0 | 102.5 | 101.1 | 99.9 |
| 3 | 106.1 | 103.5 | 101.6 | 100.0 |
| 4 | 108.2 | 103.7 | 101.8 | 100.7 |
| 5 | 110.4 | 103.2 | 101.7 | 102.1 |
| 6 | 112.6 | 102.0 | 101.6 | 103.9 |
| 7 | 114.9 | 100.4 | 101.6 | 105.9 |
| 8 | 117.2 | 99.2 | 102.1 | 108.0 |
| 9 | 119.5 | 98.6 | 102.9 | 110.1 |
| 10 | 121.9 | 98.9 | 104.2 | 112.3 |
| 11 | 124.3 | 99.7 | 105.7 | 114.5 |
| 12 | 126.8 | 101.1 | 107.4 | 116.8 |
| 13 | 129.4 | 102.7 | 109.4 | 119.2 |
| 14 | 131.9 | 104.5 | 111.4 | 121.6 |
| 15 | 134.6 | 106.5 | 113.5 | 124.0 |
| 16 | 137.3 | 108.5 | 115.7 | 126.5 |
| 17 | 140.0 | 110.7 | 118.0 | 129.0 |
| 18 | 142.8 | 112.9 | 120.4 | 131.6 |
| 19 | 145.7 | 115.1 | 122.8 | 134.2 |
| 20 | 148.6 | 117.4 | 125.2 | 136.9 |
Methods
- Tools of government Hood (1983), The Tools of Government, Macmillan
- Carrots, sticks and sermons Bemelmans-Videc, Rist and Vedung (1998), Transaction
- Diffusion of innovations Rogers (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press
- Uncertainty fan (parameter Monte Carlo) Spiegelhalter, Pearson and Short (2011), Visualising uncertainty about the future, Science 333
- One-at-a-time sensitivity (tornado) Saltelli and others (2008), Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer, Wiley
Data
The model runs on the teaching values set by the controls. To calibrate it for a place, read it against these admitted layers and series, which this page's map can draw:
- Borders Natural Earth
- Cities Natural Earth
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Information Integrity and Public Trust in Foundry
- Tested at Information Integrity and Public Trust in Universe
- Codified in Governance, Security and Society in Standards
- Published in Information Integrity and Public Trust in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Governance, Policy and International Affairs in Academy
Where the evidence comes from.
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 |
From mandate to evaluation, by pillar.
The steps an instrument takes from mandate to evaluation, each with the pillar that runs it, and the decisions that stay with the authority. Teaching model with stated illustrative values, not a prediction.
- Mandate and problem framing Competent authority (outside the programme)
A competent authority frames the problem and the mandate under its own rules. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Evidence and system model Foundry
The system is modelled with its feedbacks, data and stated limits. OECD (2014), principle 2 - Options appraised with scenarios Foundry
Instruments are compared under scenarios, with uncertainty shown. Hood (1983) - Exercise with stakeholders Universe
The options are tested in an exercise with those who would implement and bear them. OECD (2014), principle 3 - Standard or guidance drafted Nexus Standards
What works is codified as a standard or guidance, open to comment. Nexus Standards process - Decision by the authority Competent authority (outside the programme)
The authority decides, outside the programme, with the evidence on record. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Capacity and training Risk Academy
Those who implement are trained on the decided instrument and its data. Sendai Framework (2015), priority 2 - Monitoring and public report Reports
Indicators are published with sources, limits and corrections. OECD (2014), principle 5 - Evaluation and revision Nexus Standards
Results return to the standard and the model: the cycle closes. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009)
Methods
- Policy cycle Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009), Studying Public Policy, Oxford University Press
- Governance of critical risks OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Critical Risks
- Layered drawing of directed graphs Sugiyama, Tagawa and Toda (1981), IEEE SMC 11
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Information Integrity and Public Trust in Foundry
- Tested at Information Integrity and Public Trust in Universe
- Codified in Governance, Security and Society in Standards
- Published in Information Integrity and Public Trust in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Governance, Policy and International Affairs in Academy
Who decides, and what the evidence serves.
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 |
Outputs this topic produces
- Guide to the three-part test for limits on expression
- Comparative notes on platform due process duties
- Dialogue briefs on access to information practice
- Questions for legislatures on journalist protection
How information governance rights is governed: instruments, mandates and commitments.
The instruments, mandates, actors and accountability arrangements a policymaker, diplomat or development agency works with, citing the agreements that set them. Structures follow the frameworks named. Any state or progress drawn is illustrative, not a record.
Accountability cycle
How commitments on information governance rights are held to account, from commitment to correction.
- CommitGovernmentA commitment with a mandate and a legal basis.
- PlanLead agencyA national plan with owners and milestones.
- ResourceMinistry of financeA budget line or financing on record.
- ImplementAgencies and local governmentDelivery against the plan.
- ReportStatistics officeIndicators reported in agreed definitions.
- ReviewLegislature, audit, civil societyIndependent review of results and gaps.
- CorrectGovernmentChanges to the plan, published with reasons.
What experts ask.
Experts in information governance ask how to address harm without suppressing rights.
- What legal standards govern restrictions on expression, and how do they apply online?
- How can measures against harmful information be made proportionate, transparent and contestable?
- What risks arise when governments define what counts as false information?
- How do privacy and data protection interact with efforts to counter harmful content?
- How can people challenge decisions that affect their speech or access to information?
Protecting the public and protecting 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.
Why now: new rules on platforms and online content are being tested against freedom of expression and access to information in courts and regulators. The platform is designed to compare those rules and record where rights safeguards hold or fail, without rating any outlet or platform.
How the evidence is built, and where it stops.
- 01
Legal analysis
Comparing laws against human rights standards. Implementation may differ from law.
- 02
Transparency report analysis
Studying data on content decisions. Reports are self-reported and inconsistent.
- 03
Impact assessment
Assessing effects of measures on rights and harms with social and behavioural science. Effects are hard to measure.
- 04
Case documentation
Recording cases of overreach or harm. Cases may not be representative.
How it is studied, and what the methods cannot say.
- 01Social and behavioural scienceMeasuring trust and exposure · Testing interventions · Qualitative study of information needsApplied here
- 02Network science and contagionDetecting coordinated behaviour · Tracing narrative spread · Mapping media ecosystemsApplied here
- 03Artificial intelligence and machine learningClassifier error in moderation · Synthetic media detection limits · Recommender auditsApplied here
Questions and answers.
When may expression be restricted?
What is a SLAPP?
Do platforms have to explain moderation decisions?
Can laws against false information be justified?
Who should decide what is removed online?
Does GRF advocate for particular laws?
Contribute evidence from this page.
Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- EmailGateway GW-GRFSend it from this pageEvidence, a correction, a case, a method, a review, a translation or profile input. It arrives tagged with this page, so the editor who owns it receives it.
- ZenodoOpen depositDeposit it and submit to the communityPublish your own record on Zenodo with your ORCID iD, then submit it to the Reports community there. Curators review it; the DOI stays yours.
- ReportsGlobal Risks ForumSee every way to contributeThe contribution types, how each is reviewed, what credit you receive, the licence and what is never accepted.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
Bring a governance question to the Forum.
Information and enquiries are open today. 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.
Legal documents.
Show all 18 legal documents
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.