1. A Stark Warning on the ‘Disinformation Industry’
A senior Romanian social scientist and former state secretary has issued a stark warning about the growing threat of organised disinformation, arguing that democratic states are no longer dealing with isolated hoaxes but with a powerful “industry” that manufactures fear and turns suspicion into certainty at alarming speed. In an intervention published by Hotnews, Ciprian Necula, who previously served as a state secretary and remains a respected voice on social policy and public administration, called for a fundamental rethink of how governments respond to the torrent of false and manipulative content circulating online. Necula stressed that this is not a peripheral problem that can be managed with occasional fact-checks and public service announcements. Rather, he described an ecosystem capable of exploiting every conceivable anxiety, connecting like-minded individuals into echo chambers, and rapidly radicalising public opinion. “The problem is that there is an industry capable of reinforcing every conceivable fear, bringing together people who share the same views, and very quickly turning a suspicion into a certainty,” he said. This framing moves the debate away from individual lies towards the structural and financial machinery behind them, suggesting that the current approach of debunking falsehoods after they have already spread is dangerously insufficient.
2. A Voice of Experience on the Front Lines of Policy
Necula’s warning carries particular weight because of his unique position straddling academia and government. As a social scientist with deep expertise in governance, social dynamics, and the relationship between citizens and the state, he has spent years studying the very fractures that disinformation exploits. His time as a state secretary gave him firsthand experience of how institutions communicate (or fail to communicate) with the public, and how quickly trust can evaporate when citizens feel unheard or manipulated. From this vantage point, he has observed the evolution of disinformation from crude fake news into a sophisticated, data-driven operation that targets specific communities, reinforces pre-existing biases, and uses algorithmic amplification to make fringe narratives appear mainstream. His intervention on Hotnews was not simply an academic observation; it was a call to arms for policymakers who, in his view, are still treating disinformation as a nuisance rather than a strategic threat. By using the word “industry,” Necula intentionally draws attention to the professionalisation of this phenomenon: the use of bot networks, coordinated troll farms, paid influencers, and artificial intelligence to manufacture consent and sow discord. For him, the stakes are existential: if democratic institutions cannot win back the attention and trust of their citizens, the entire social contract is endangered.
3. The Fatal Flaw of Reactive Fact-Checking
One of the most compelling aspects of Necula’s argument is his rejection of the prevailing reactive model of combating disinformation. Governments, media organisations, and civil society groups have invested heavily in fact-checking, rapid response units, and debunking pages, but Necula believes this approach is fundamentally lagging behind the problem. By the time a false claim has been identified, verified as false, and publicly corrected, it has already travelled through countless private messaging apps, closed groups, and recommendation engines, embedding itself in the minds of millions. The original lie often outlives the correction, and the correction itself can be dismissed as elite propaganda. “It’s not enough to combat every lie only after it has already gone viral, because by then it’s often already too late,” he warned. This insight is crucial because it explains why fact-checking alone never seems to gain ground against disinformation. The defenders of truth are engaged in a game of whack-a-mole, while the attackers have time, resources, and emotional appeal on their side. A lie can be simple, visceral, and instantly shareable; the truth, by contrast, is complex, nuanced, and slow to assemble. Necula’s implication is clear: the state must change its posture from being a reactive firefighter to a proactive builder of resilience, preventing the fire from starting in the first place rather than trying to put it out after it has consumed the forest.
4. Repairing Trust and Investing in Media Literacy
In outlining the solution, Necula did not call for censorship or heavy-handed state control, but rather for a deep restoration of the relationship between citizens and institutions. He argued that disinformation thrives where trust is absent; if people believed in the credibility of their government, public health authorities, courts, and media, they would be far less susceptible to conspiracy theories and foreign manipulation. “The state must restore the relationship between citizens and institutions,” he declared, underscoring the need for transparent governance, honest communication, and genuine public engagement. Alongside this institutional repair, Necula advocated for a “serious investment” in media literacy. This is not about teaching schoolchildren to identify fake news as a one-off workshop, but about embedding critical thinking skills across the educational system and in adult education programmes, enabling citizens to evaluate sources, understand algorithms, recognise emotional manipulation, and question their own biases. Media literacy, in his view, is a public good as essential as roads or schools. He also called for a sustained state presence within communities and the digital sphere. Too often, governments abandon online spaces to trolls and propagandists, only appearing to issue warnings or corrections. Necula suggests that state institutions must be continuously present where citizens actually spend their time, participating in digital discussions, answering questions, and offering a credible alternative to the narratives spread by bad actors.
5. From Abstract Threat to Concrete Consequences
Necula closed his warning with an urgent observation: disinformation is no longer a minor issue in public communication, but a problem that can have very concrete consequences. This is a direct challenge to those who dismiss online falsehoods as harmless chatter or the inevitable price of free speech. The “concrete consequences” he refers to are manifold. Disinformation campaigns have been documented to influence election outcomes, undermine vaccination campaigns, incite violence against minorities, erode confidence in justice systems, and even threaten national security by weakening public support for alliances and institutions. In the digital age, a single viral rumour can cause banks to face runs, hospitals to be overwhelmed, or mobs to gather in the streets. When citizens no longer share a common set of facts, democratic deliberation becomes impossible, and the door opens for autocratic populism or foreign intervention. Necula’s use of the word “concrete” is deliberate: he wants to move the debate away from abstractions and toward the very real damage that disinformation inflicts on people’s lives, on social cohesion, and on the stability of the state itself. The failure to treat this with seriousness, he implies, is not just negligence; it is an abdication of the state’s most basic responsibility to protect its citizens.
6. A Call for Strategic, Long-Term Commitment
Necula’s intervention on Hotnews amounts to a clear-sighted, non-partisan plea for maturity in dealing with a defining challenge of our age. He is not offering a magic bullet, nor does he pretend that the solution is easy. Rebuilding trust takes years of consistent, honest action; investing in media literacy requires political will and sustained funding; maintaining a presence in communities and the digital sphere demands new skills and institutional changes. But the alternative, as he sees it, is a future in which the disinformation industry dictates the terms of public debate, in which every suspicion is quickly weaponised into a certainty, and in which the state is permanently on the back foot, chasing lies that it can never catch up with. His message is ultimately one of serious, strategic optimism: if the state is willing to treat disinformation as a core security issue and to invest accordingly, it is possible to rebuild the resilience of society and restore the bonds of trust that hold democratic nations together. The call is urgent, the diagnosis is clear, and the path forward, while demanding, is knowable. As Ciprian Necula’s words make plain, the time for half-measures and after-the-fact corrections has long passed; what is needed now is a serious, coordinated, and sustained commitment to defending the truth and the institutions that uphold it.
