The imperative of facilitating access to information in period 2+2=5 (By Dr. Birame FAYE)

“No news is good news!” Such a sentiment, heard far beyond the digital colonies, expresses much more than relief and disappointment. In reality, it is an indictment of all the information and communication spaces it governs. The overabundance of fake news has reached pandemic levels, and the measures implemented so far are far from adequate to meet the challenges (haphazard cybercrime of freedom of expression, fact-checking, media literacy, institutionalization of the fight against FIM, etc.). Specialists are, in fact, searching for the right term to better characterize the depth of the problem.

While we wait for this epistemic battle to conclude, the evidence remains that a significant portion of so-called informational digital content is unhealthy and makes us unhealthy. By increasingly avoiding it, individuals are exercising an absolute right: the right to protect themselves from stress. To say the least. According to the "Digital News Report 2026," published by the Reuters Institute at Oxford University— a report that covered only four of the 47 African countries studied (Morocco, South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria) —the phenomenon of actively avoiding information (turning off notifications, ignoring certain topics, etc.) reached a global record of 42% in 2026, compared to 29% in 2017. This rate exceeded 60% in Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, and Turkey.

The algorithm, the regulator

It is clear that the responsibilities for this phenomenon are shared but differentiated. Indeed, the spread of fake news, which the internet has deterritorialized, goes beyond the sole responsibility of "traditional" media and public decision-makers. The platformization of human interactions has further exposed the public to the hegemony of Big Tech , where the algorithm embodies the regulator. This algorithm classifies, recommends, and directs content. Fake accounts and troll farms work to saturate the digital space. Algorithmic biases thus transpose the racial, cultural, scientific, and geopolitical inequalities that characterize the world into digital spaces. Observing this phenomenon, Howard and Woolley (2018) chose the concept of "computational propaganda" to designate the coordinated use of digital communication tools, particularly bots and algorithms, with the aim of manipulating public opinion and shaping the political agenda.

In 2021, this dark side of digital platforms was exposed through the "Facebook Files." The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets like Le Monde published a series of revealing articles exposing preferential treatment that exempted millions of public figures from moderation rules. The credibility of digital platforms suffered a serious blow. These dubious practices further demonstrated that, behind the bots, algorithms, and all these tools of influence, there are men, women, and companies with specific economic, cultural, and geopolitical agendas to promote. And in a market economy, any form of free service should raise questions for the consumer.

The Orwellian moment

In light of the foregoing, the English writer George Orwell would recognize himself in the current context. This confirms several of the hypotheses he put forward in his novel "1984" (published in 1949). Describing a future society while his own was marked by world wars and the rise of fascism in its various forms, Orwell predicted the hegemony of lying as a universal , widely shared value. And in such a time, he predicted, "2+2=5 ," not 4. This metaphor reflects a world where truth is orphaned, where double-speak and groupthink reign supreme. The "conscious liar," a phrase dear to President Léopold Sédar Senghor (Abdou Diouf, 2014), would have the status of a near-universal reference point.

Yet, Orwellian foresight ignored the advent of one of the most transformative technological conquests of our time, the internet, and subsequently that of major digital platforms and Artificial Intelligence. It should have considered them as the new modern Big Brothers who, despite the objective benefits they have brought to contemporary society, contribute to the breakdown of social relations and values such as truth, and perpetuate the illusion of a "global village."

In this respect, a government that refuses to facilitate access to information produced and held by institutional sources clearly encourages the disinformation industry. Undoubtedly, this institutional openness will be just one lever among many that an ambitious national policy will necessarily have to incorporate.

By inviting state actors to the celebration of the Right to Information Day on September 28, in Freetown (September 28-30, 2026), to discuss the theme "Preserving the Integrity of Information in the Digital Age: The Role of Access to Information in the Face of Information Disorder," UNESCO hopes to encourage them to take action against the problem, rather than simply producing yet another conference report. The cost of inaction is already too high.

By Dr. Birame FAYE