Fighting Information Harms: Why Less is More and Sparse is Smarter
What if the best way to improve our information ecosystems isn’t to add more fact-checks, more content moderation, or more messages—but to design better networks?
Earlier today I just got done ranting about how better messaging won’t save us from experience and harmful effects of modern attention economy – thinking about the designed ecosystem will.
And then this paper and substack crossed my inbox and it makes a similar point.
A fascinating new study (below) connects the physics of quantum systems to how complex networks—whether social media, public health systems, or misinformation ecosystems—self-organize. The key insight?
📌 Less is more. More is different. Sparse is better.
In nature, dense connections can overwhelm a system. Whether it’s neurons in the brain, social networks, or the internet, the most resilient and efficient systems balance connection and constraint—creating smart, selective pathways for information flow.
💡 What this means for addressing misinformation and strengthening public health communication?
We often assume that more information = better outcomes. But throwing more content into the chaos of digital misinformation doesn’t necessarily help.
Instead, we should:
✅ Think like a smart network – Instead of blanketing the internet with corrections, we should amplify high-trust, well-connected voices who can shift narratives effectively.
✅ Embrace strategic sparseness – More fact-checks won’t change minds if people don’t trust the source. What matters is who shares information and how they share it.
✅ Design adaptive, decentralized interventions – The best misinformation responses aren’t rigid or top-down. They evolve, just like resilient ecosystems, shifting based on real-time dynamics.
This insight applies directly to public health, crisis communication, and misinformation interventions. Instead of focusing on more, we need to focus on better: better connections, better pathways, and better ways to strengthen information ecosystems.
The trick is – we need to also evolve what “better” and “higher quality” in this context actually means. Hint: They can’t be defined by communications concepts alone.