Deepanjalie Abeywardana is the Deputy Director of Media and Politics at Verité Research, an independent interdisciplinary think tank in Sri Lanka. With extensive expertise in media ethics and behavior, she has collaborated with local and international stakeholders to help them better understand Sri Lanka’s media landscape, media ownership, and the press’s role in promoting reconciliation.
In this interview, Abeywardana discusses the impact of social media in mobilizing Sri Lankans during the 2022 mass uprising, the spread of disinformation during the recent presidential election, and the critical role of education in combating misinformation and disinformation.
Deeksha Udupa: How would you describe the nature of misinformation and disinformation in Sri Lanka today? Who do you think is the target group or groups, and how do misinformation and disinformation contribute to communal tensions in the country?
Deepanjalie Abeywardana: Disinformation in Sri Lanka tends to surge during periods of disruption, such as communal tensions or incidents of religious violence. Targeted misinformation, particularly against individuals from minority communities—especially the most vulnerable—remains a persistent issue.
Elections are also key periods of heightened mis- and disinformation. We just concluded a presidential election where political campaigns aimed at triggering disharmony against ethnic- and religious groups did not succeed. For the first time in a very long time, religious disharmony did not happen. Prior to the most recent election, however, we always see politically engineered polarization and hate speech directed at minorities and women, particularly women who are contesting in these elections.
Beyond these two cycles, global events also impact mis- and disinformation in Sri Lanka. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, we experienced heightened misinformation targeting specific minorities. Like in India, Muslims in Sri Lanka were labeled as the spreaders of the COVID-19 virus. Various media sources also racially profiled COVID-19 patients as Muslims, bringing to the surface certain prejudices and perceptions that are inaccurate and ingrained in the minds of the majority.
DU: As you said, there was a switch in the last elections because a lot of these misinformation actors did not win. What do you think contributed to this switch?
DA: During past elections, Sri Lanka saw widespread misinformation, disinformation, and racial profiling directed at religious minorities. However, this time, a key shift occurred as people demanded systemic change. The 2022 Sri Lankan protests, known as Aragalaya, were mass peaceful demonstrations calling for a transformation in governance. While the specifics of these changes remain somewhat undefined, one crucial demand was for reforms to counter corruption and dismantle the entrenched political establishment that concentrated power among the elite. In an environment where the public was pushing for genuine change, traditional electoral tactics that relied on targeting specific individuals or minorities became far less effective.
The mass uprising we saw enabled an environment where there was a strong appetite for substantial change. In that context, then, all of the presidential candidates who were contesting did not engage in hateful campaigns that were inflammatory in nature.
DU: What role do social media platforms play in this equation?
DA: When legacy and mainstream media failed to represent the voices of the people, social media emerged as a powerful tool for citizen empowerment. It played a pivotal role in the 2022 mass uprising, enabling people to mobilize and express their frustrations openly. Initially, mainstream media hesitated to cover Aragalaya accurately, but over time, it began reporting on the movement more positively. In this way, social media became instrumental in rallying public support for the uprising. It has consistently played a crucial role in moments of change, particularly when mainstream media coverage is influenced by the interests of media owners rather than the public.
It has also given people a platform to be critical, demand transparency, and advocate for democracy—especially when traditional media has failed to act in the public’s best interest. Given this, discussions about social media restrictions in other parts of the world must be approached cautiously in Sri Lanka. Protecting social media here is essential to ensuring that people retain the freedom to use their voices without undue restrictions.
DU: Considering that social media is both a tool of misinformation and empowerment, how has disinformation been addressed in Sri Lanka?
DA: In terms of social media as a tool of disinformation, there are actors who use social media as an organized weapon to target certain individuals or groups and portray them negatively. In such cases, disinformation campaigns are highly organized and coordinated, amplifying false or misleading content to manipulate public perception. Another challenge arises when individuals who lack digital literacy use social media without understanding its complexities. This issue is particularly evident across different age groups. Younger users, for instance, may not yet have the critical skills to recognize misinformation or distinguish fact-based reporting from falsehoods. Meanwhile, older users—particularly those over 35—may enter social media with preexisting biases and encounter polarized narratives, often without the ability to fact-check or engage critically with opposing viewpoints. This lack of digital literacy contributes to the spread of disinformation, not out of malicious intent but due to a fundamental gap in media awareness.
This challenge is exacerbated by the absence of strong critical thinking components in the education system. Addressing disinformation requires comprehensive educational efforts to equip individuals with the skills to navigate social media responsibly. Without this, people are more likely to uncritically share and amplify falsehoods, inadvertently turning social media into a breeding ground for hateful disinformation.
DU: How do you think media literacy and critical media consumption can be increased and maintained in Sri Lanka? Who would you define to be the key stakeholders responsible for investing in improved media hygiene in Sri Lanka?
DA: It is vital that we educate children and equip them with the knowledge and tools to critically engage online and consume information. These skills should be embedded in the school curriculum and should also be part of civic education. Civil society organizations can also play a larger role, which is where Verité Research comes into the picture. Since 2016, we have been running Ethics-Eye to educate media consumers—or the public—and traditional media outlets. We are looking at not just the demand side but also the supply side, and we are trying to educate the supply side to diminish the chances of them spreading mis- and disinformation. Civil society organizations cannot limit their efforts to merely flagging misinformation and disinformation; they must also play an active role in educating the public.
The ultimate goal for us is to make sure that citizens are informed, enabled, and empowered to make decisions that are not going to be detrimental to the overall democratic fabric of society. Civil society and civic education play a crucial role in this process, especially when the state itself is complicit in perpetuating prejudices and misinformation. When trust in the state as an impartial actor is compromised, it becomes even more essential to have independent voices that can hold it accountable.
DU: How do you think Meta’s decision to dissolve its fact-checking program will impact the information disorder on Sri Lankan social media?
DA: For years, there have been concerns and problems with how Big Tech companies conduct themselves, especially in the domain of mis- and disinformation. This is true both in the Sri Lankan context and the global context. It is quite disturbing that the opportunity to flag content and educate the public is further limited now.
Rather than depending too much on the platforms, perhaps it is time to intervene on behalf of the consumers. It’s now more important than ever that consumers educate themselves and learn to identify disinformation and refrain from—intentionally or unintentionally—populating and disseminating disinformation. Consumers should also empower others who are fighting against disinformation. Once we construct that civic approach where the individual is informed and empowered, it becomes less about these social media companies themselves. Once the infrastructure to empower the citizens is developed and implemented, we can minimize harm.