GDPD Logo

Global Disinformation Policy Database

A cross-national record of how states govern information disorder.

Spanning 365 policies from 133 governments, 2000–2024 — coded across a 53-variable scheme.

365
Policies
133
Countries
2000–24
Coverage
Explore

Three findings

When the wave broke, what the words mean, how governments act.

01 · Temporal evolution

The wave started in 2012 — not 2016.

201220002023

Annual adoption climbed from 5.2 policies/year before 2012 to 26.9 after — a five-fold jump that began four years before the post-2016 disinformation panic.

See the timeline

02 · Conceptualization

Most policies don’t define the term they invoke.

Disinformation pathways · n=197no intent identified: 39.6%to harm: 23.9%to deceive: 20.3%to mislead: 16.2%no intent identifiedto harmto deceiveto mislead

Roughly 92% of policies use a label like “disinformation,” “fake news,” or “propaganda” without an explicit definition. Even among the policies that engage the concept further, 39.6% impose no intent requirement.

See the labels vs. reality

03 · Governance shape

What governments do depends on where they are.

AfricaIncentive: 90.4%Authority: 9.6%EuropeIncentive: 40.5%Authority: 32.4%Capacity: 21.6%Learning: 2.7%Symbolic: 2.7%IncentiveAuthorityCapacityLearningSymbolic

Africa relies on penalties: 90% of its policies use incentive instruments (fines, criminal sanctions, sometimes payouts). In Europe, incentive leads at 40.5% — regulator agencies, media-literacy programs, and similar capacity-building.

See the governance map

Or browse the database directly

CountriesPoliciesDefinitionsAnalysisAbout & methods