Traditional methods of myth busting remain important for slowing misinformation, but to properly stop it democracies will have to do much more. Sometimes, truth can be a matter of perspective and interpretation. It has become normal to see basic truth claims contested in the public arena — from the recently defeated Voice referendum in Australia to the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. But many still wonder how and why it seems more people question or deny solidly and scientifically established truths, from human influence on climate change to the effectiveness of vaccines or the world being a rotating globe (yes, flat-earther communities deny this). Given the easy availability of overwhelming evidence, it can be hard to imagine those who believe and spread falsehoods are simply ill-informed. Instead, most of them appear to share a deep-seated mistrust in mainstream institutions that generate or communicate facts, such as governments, international agencies, academia or the news media. More often than not, this mistrust is tied to conspiratorial allegations against institutions, accusing them of involvement in a secretive, nefarious plot against ordinary people. As the logic typically goes: why else would institutions hide the ‘real truth’ and spread narratives that allegedly serve their supposedly hidden agenda? Here, mis- and disinformation strongly overlap with conspiracy beliefs. As research on conspiratorial thinking has expanded, it is increasingly clear that conspiracy theories reflect more than personal cognitive biases or a lack of rationality. Their appeal seems to lie partially in the fact that they can offer people a much-sought opportunity to meet epistemic, existential and social needs for respect, control, social connectedness and recognition. Victoria University research found that those who subscribed to conspiracy theories felt they had found what they considered the ‘real truth’, despite the alleged efforts of powerful institutions to hide it from them. This built their sense of “pride and epistemic superiority, which created a sense of meaning, urgency, and purpose, as well as social recognition within their group”. Acknowledging these psychological layers is crucial to understanding and addressing the seemingly unprecedented rise in conspiratorial misinformation (and its deliberate variant, disinformation), which has been accelerated by social media. Against this backdrop, objective and reason-based strategies, such as fact-checking or identifying and shutting down misinformation, don’t counter the appeal of conspiratorial mis- and disinformation. While these strategies can help curb the spread of misinformation, those who subscribe to conspiratorial misinformation tend to be largely immune to it — they instead apply selective rationality, such as referring to fringe sources or cherry-picking the information they believe. Given the ‘self-sealing quality’ of such alternative beliefs, attempts to counter may be taken by believers as evidence that the conspiracy claims are actually true. This risk is particularly prevalent when the very institutions accused of conspiring against the people — governments, academia, mainstream media or social media companies — are the ones trying to fact-check or ‘correct’ misinformation. It’s more vital to prevent the emergence of conspiracy-based counter-publics and communities. There’s no single fix to achieving this. A promising prevention strategy is ‘cognitive inoculation’, a series of approaches to strengthen digital literacy and train critical thinking skills through means such as providing practical tools to spot online manipulation and untrustworthy sources. An October 2023 study of Canadian high school students found, for example, that ‘lateral reading’ techniques, in which they evaluated online claims by simultaneously using quick internet searches on the claim’s source, can improve their ability to identify misinformation. Another way to stop hard-to-reach conspiracy-based groups from developing is by exploring alternative mechanisms to deal with community dissent and political opposition – before polarisation escalates into unyielding opposition and individuals abandon the ground of democratic debate. This could involve, for example, more tailored and targeted engagement formats where those who hold differing views find a platform to directly discuss their objections with political decision-makers and possibly other members of the community. This can often be challenging, as it forces all sides involved to listen to and engage with positions many may find incomprehensible, outrageous or socially harmful, such as rejecting public health measures during a pandemic or peddling Islamophobia during a local mosque controversy.