Platform Resistance and Counter-Disinformation Strategies: How Environmental Journalists Combat Corporate Misinformation Networks in Maritime Southeast Asia

Abstract

This study examines how environmental journalists in Eastern Indonesia develop innovative digital strategies to counter corporate disinformation while maintaining credible climate reporting amid systematic censorship and algorithmic suppression. Through ethnographic fieldwork with 34 environmental journalists in Makassar and surrounding maritime communities (2023–2024), combined with digital platform analysis and content verification tracking, this investigation reveals how local journalists create “networked verification archipelagos” that mirror traditional maritime communication systems to combat extractive industry misinformation. Our analysis revealed three primary counter-disinformation mechanisms: (1) community-based verification networks that successfully identified 87% of corporate misinformation within 48 h through traditional knowledge integration; (2) algorithmic resistance strategies that increased environmental content visibility by 156% through cultural framing techniques; and (3) cross-platform coordination that maintained journalist communication networks despite 34 documented censorship campaigns. These networks enable accurate environmental reporting despite corporate-sponsored disinformation campaigns, government restrictions on mining coverage, and social media algorithms that amplify climate denial content. The research demonstrates how journalists in the Global South develop decolonial approaches to counter-disinformation that challenge Western platform-centric fact-checking models while maintaining journalistic credibility and community accountability. These findings contribute to understanding power dynamics and coloniality in disinformation studies while offering insights for media literacy and democratic integrity in climate-vulnerable regions.

1. Introduction

The intersection of climate disinformation and digital platform governance has created unprecedented challenges for environmental journalism worldwide, particularly in regions where extractive industries deploy sophisticated misinformation campaigns through social media algorithms (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2007; Farrell, 2019). Throughout this study, we define extractive industries as corporate sectors engaged in natural resource extraction activities, specifically mining operations (nickel, coal, gold), fossil fuel production, industrial aquaculture, and large-scale plantation agriculture that fundamentally alter local ecosystems and community livelihoods. As corporations increasingly utilize algorithmic manipulation and targeted disinformation to suppress environmental reporting, journalists must develop innovative strategies for maintaining credible climate coverage while countering well-funded misinformation networks (Tschötschel et al., 2020; van der Linden et al., 2017).

These challenges are particularly acute in the Global South, where environmental journalists face coordinated disinformation campaigns from extractive industries while depending on corporate-controlled social media platforms for news distribution and audience engagement (Milan & Treré, 2019; Waisbord, 2018). The power dynamics inherent in platform capitalism intersect with colonial histories of resource extraction to create what might be termed “epistemic extraction”, the systematic undermining of local environmental knowledge through algorithmic amplification of corporate-sponsored misinformation (Couldry & Mejias, 2019; de Sousa Santos, 2014).

Despite extensive research on climate disinformation in Western contexts, significant gaps exist in understanding how environmental misinformation operates in the Global South, where different technological infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, and cultural contexts shape disinformation dynamics. Existing literature on fact-checking and counter-disinformation strategies predominantly focuses on centralized, Western-institutional approaches that may not be applicable or effective in contexts where state and corporate power structures actively promote environmental misinformation. Furthermore, scholarly work on platform governance has rarely examined how marginalized communities in climate-vulnerable regions develop autonomous verification systems that challenge both corporate platform control and colonial knowledge hierarchies. This study addresses these critical gaps by examining how environmental journalists in maritime Southeast Asia develop community-based counter-disinformation strategies that integrate traditional knowledge systems with digital verification practices.

Maritime Southeast Asia presents a compelling case study for understanding these dynamics, as the region faces severe climate impacts while experiencing intensive corporate disinformation campaigns targeting environmental reporting (Tapsell, 2017). Indonesia’s archipelagic geography creates unique vulnerabilities to disinformation, with isolated coastal and island communities often serving as testing grounds for corporate misinformation strategies later deployed globally (Lim, 2018; Postill, 2018).

This study examines how environmental journalists in South Sulawesi, Indonesia, navigate the complex intersection of climate reporting, corporate disinformation, and algorithmic manipulation. Based in Makassar, the largest city in Eastern Indonesia and a crucial node for regional environmental monitoring, this research investigates how journalists develop alternative verification networks that enable accurate environmental reporting while countering systematic disinformation campaigns. Recent research on digital transformation in journalism has highlighted the importance of understanding how AI technologies and platform algorithms affect news production practices in different regional contexts (Sonni et al., 2024), while studies on information disorder have revealed the vulnerabilities of marginalized communities to sophisticated disinformation campaigns (Irwanto et al., 2025).

The research addresses three specific questions that guide our investigation:

• RQ1: How do environmental journalists in maritime Southeast Asia develop counter-disinformation strategies that operate independently of Western-dominated fact-checking systems, and what mechanisms enable these strategies to maintain verification accuracy while respecting community knowledge authority?
• RQ2: What alternative models of information verification emerge when mainstream platforms systematically amplify corporate environmental misinformation, and how do these models differ from centralized fact-checking approaches in terms of structure, effectiveness, and community engagement?
• RQ3: How do journalists integrate traditional knowledge systems with digital verification practices to enhance climate reporting credibility while resisting epistemic colonialism, and what protocols enable this integration to strengthen both traditional governance and contemporary environmental advocacy?

This research adopts a grounded theory approach, allowing counter-disinformation strategies and verification mechanisms to emerge from empirical data rather than imposing predetermined theoretical frameworks. While we draw on existing concepts from decolonial media studies, platform governance scholarship, and environmental communication to contextualize our findings, our primary theoretical contribution is the concept of “verification archipelagos” and their associated mechanisms, which emerged directly from the analysis of journalist practices and community verification activities observed during fieldwork. This approach enabled us to develop a theory grounded in the specific socio-technical contexts of maritime Southeast Asia while offering insights applicable to other Global South regions facing similar challenges.

The significance of this research extends beyond regional journalism studies. As climate disinformation campaigns intensify globally and platform algorithms increasingly favor engagement over accuracy, understanding how journalists in climate-vulnerable regions maintain credible environmental reporting provides crucial insights for democratic integrity and media literacy advocacy (Lewandowsky et al., 2017; Nisbet, 2018). Furthermore, the networked approaches developed by Indonesian journalists offer models for counter-disinformation that could be adapted in other contexts facing similar challenges.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

2.1. Environmental Disinformation and Platform Governance

Research on climate disinformation has revealed sophisticated strategies that fossil fuel companies and extractive industries employ to undermine environmental reporting through social media manipulation (Cann & Raymond, 2018; Supran & Oreskes, 2017). However, much of this scholarship focuses on disinformation campaigns in Western contexts, leaving significant gaps in understanding how environmental misinformation operates in the Global South, where different technological infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, and cultural contexts shape disinformation dynamics (Schäfer, 2012).

The concept of “manufactured doubt” was developed by Oreskes and Conway (2010), providing a framework for understanding how industries systematically undermine scientific consensus through strategic misinformation. In the Indonesian context, this manufactured doubt takes specific forms related to mining impacts, deforestation rates, and marine ecosystem degradation, often exploiting existing tensions between traditional environmental knowledge and Western scientific frameworks (Li, 2007; Tsing, 2024).

Social media algorithms play crucial roles in amplifying environmental disinformation by prioritizing engagement metrics that favor controversial or emotionally provocative content over factual accuracy (Guess et al., 2019; Vosoughi et al., 2018). This “algorithmic amplification” of disinformation is particularly problematic for environmental reporting, where complex scientific information often competes with simplified but misleading corporate messaging (Marshall, 2014; Pearce et al., 2014). As Sonni et al. (2024) demonstrated in their systematic review of AI in journalism, these algorithmic systems fundamentally alter how environmental information circulates and which voices gain visibility in public discourse.

2.2. Power Dynamics and Coloniality in Disinformation Networks

The “coloniality of knowledge” framework developed by Quijano (2000) and further elaborated by de Sousa Santos (2014) provides crucial insights into how disinformation operates as a form of epistemic violence that marginalizes indigenous and local knowledge systems. Environmental disinformation campaigns often function by positioning Western scientific knowledge as the only valid framework for understanding environmental issues while simultaneously manipulating that same scientific discourse to create doubt about environmental degradation (Grosfoguel, 2013; Mignolo, 2011).

Corporate disinformation campaigns in Indonesia demonstrate how colonial power structures persist in digital contexts, with multinational extractive companies deploying sophisticated social media strategies to undermine local environmental knowledge while promoting development narratives that echo colonial resource extraction justifications (Aspinall, 2013; Peluso & Lund, 2011). These campaigns often exploit existing social divisions related to ethnicity, religion, and regional identity to fragment environmental opposition movements (Davidson, 2015; Hadiz, 2016).

The concept of “digital colonialism” (Couldry & Mejias, 2019; Kwet, 2019) extends traditional colonial analysis to examine how platform capitalism reproduces colonial extraction patterns through data mining and algorithmic control. Environmental disinformation represents a specific manifestation of digital colonialism, where corporate-controlled algorithms suppress local environmental knowledge while amplifying misinformation that serves extractive industry interests. Research on information pandemic dynamics has shown how these digital power structures affect state resilience and democratic institutions in developing countries (Surjatmodjo et al., 2024).

2.3. Community-Engaged Journalism and Verification Networks

The concept of community-engaged journalism provides important context for understanding how journalists develop collaborative relationships with communities to enhance reporting accuracy and relevance (Wenzel, 2020). Wenzel’s Community Information and Trust (CIT) model offers a framework for understanding how local information networks build trust through sustained community engagement and accountability mechanisms. However, existing community journalism scholarship primarily examines Western contexts where journalists operate within relatively stable democratic institutions and regulatory frameworks. Our research extends these frameworks by examining how community engagement functions in contexts where corporate disinformation campaigns systematically target both journalists and community knowledge holders, requiring more sophisticated security protocols and verification mechanisms.

The concept of “verification archipelagos” that emerged from our data differs from traditional community journalism models in several critical ways. First, while community journalism typically involves individual journalists collaborating with specific communities, verification archipelagos represent networked systems involving multiple journalists, communities, and knowledge holders operating across geographic boundaries. Second, these networks explicitly integrate traditional knowledge systems as equal verification sources alongside contemporary scientific methods, rather than treating community members solely as sources or audiences. Third, verification archipelagos incorporate sophisticated digital security measures and algorithmic resistance strategies specifically designed to counter corporate surveillance and platform manipulation, elements rarely addressed in community journalism literature. Finally, these networks operate with explicit decolonial principles that position community authority over environmental knowledge as fundamental rather than supplementary to verification processes.

2.4. Counter-Disinformation Strategies and Epistemic Justice

Emerging research on counter-disinformation strategies has identified several approaches for combating misinformation, including fact-checking, media literacy education, and platform regulation (Vraga & Bode, 2020). However, these approaches often assume Western-centric institutional frameworks and may not be applicable in contexts where state and corporate power structures actively promote environmental disinformation (Freelon & Wells, 2020; Tucker et al., 2018).

“Epistemic justice” (de Sousa Santos, 2014; Fricker, 2007) provides a framework for understanding how counter-disinformation strategies can recognize multiple knowledge systems while maintaining credibility standards. This approach is particularly relevant for environmental journalism in regions where traditional ecological knowledge offers essential insights into environmental changes that may conflict with corporate-sponsored scientific assessments (Berkes, 2012; Drew & Henne, 2006).

Community-based verification approaches demonstrate how local knowledge networks can serve as alternatives to centralized fact-checking systems that may be vulnerable to corporate or state influence (Graves, 2016; Shin & Thorson, 2017). These approaches emphasize horizontal verification networks rather than top-down expert authority, potentially offering more resilient alternatives to traditional fact-checking models.

2.5. Algorithmic Resistance and Platform Autonomy

The concept of “algorithmic resistance” (Gillespie, 2018; Huszar et al., 2022) describes how users develop strategies for evading or exploiting platform algorithms to maintain communicative autonomy despite algorithmic control. Environmental journalists demonstrate sophisticated forms of algorithmic resistance when they develop strategies for distributing accurate environmental information despite platform algorithms that favor corporate-sponsored content (Ananny, 2015; Bucher, 2016).

Platform studies scholarship has revealed how social media algorithms systematically privilege certain types of content while marginalizing others, creating what might be termed “algorithmic bias” against environmental reporting that challenges corporate interests (Benjamin, 2020; Noble, 2018). Understanding these biases is crucial for developing effective counter-disinformation strategies operating within existing platform constraints while maintaining editorial independence.

The development of alternative platform ecosystems represents another dimension of algorithmic resistance, with environmental journalists increasingly experimenting with decentralized communication technologies that operate independently of corporate platform control (Treré, 2019). While these alternatives remain limited in scope, they demonstrate ongoing efforts to develop communication infrastructures that align with democratic rather than corporate interests.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Design and Research Approach

This study employed a grounded theory methodology following Charmaz’s constructivist approach (Charmaz, 2006), which enables theoretical concepts to emerge from the systematic analysis of empirical data rather than testing predetermined hypotheses. This methodological choice responds to the limited existing scholarship on counter-disinformation practices in Global South contexts, allowing us to develop a theory grounded in the specific socio-technical conditions of maritime Southeast Asia. Our data collection and analysis proceeded iteratively, with initial findings informing subsequent fieldwork focus and theoretical development. The convergent mixed-methods design integrated ethnographic fieldwork, digital content analysis, and participatory verification tracking to capture both the production and circulation of environmental information while centering journalist perspectives and community knowledge systems.

3.2. Multi-Sited Ethnographic Fieldwork

Primary fieldwork was conducted between February 2023 and March 2024 across multiple sites in South Sulawesi, including newsrooms in Makassar, fishing communities in the Spermonde Islands, mining-affected villages in Luwu Regency, and agricultural communities facing plantation expansion. This multi-sited approach enabled observation of how disinformation campaigns target different communities while documenting how journalists develop verification strategies adapted to specific local contexts.

The ethnographic research included participant observation in formal newsrooms, alternative media collectives, fact-checking collaboratives, and community verification workshops. Extended observation periods at three major news organizations, two environmental news websites, and four alternative media collectives provided insights into institutional approaches to combating disinformation while revealing how individual journalists develop personal verification practices.

Observation protocols were structured to capture specific verification activities while maintaining ethical boundaries that protected ongoing journalism work. In newsrooms, observation focused on editorial decision-making processes, source verification procedures, and responses to corporate pressure or harassment. During community verification workshops, researchers documented traditional knowledge integration practices, consensus-building mechanisms, and digital security implementation. Field notes were recorded using encrypted digital devices, with sensitive information stored according to protocols reviewed by digital security experts. All observation activities received informed consent from the participants, with explicit agreements about which activities could be documented and how the findings would be reported.

Access to research sites was negotiated through professional journalism organizations, environmental NGOs, and community leaders, with careful attention to protecting journalist safety and editorial independence. Observation protocols were developed in consultation with the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) Makassar chapter and local digital security experts to ensure that research activities did not compromise ongoing counter-disinformation or source protection.

3.3. Participant Selection and Recruitment

Participants were selected using purposive sampling with maximum variation to capture diverse experiences across organizational contexts, geographic locations, and professional roles. Initial recruitment began through the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) Makassar chapter, which provided introductions to environmental journalists working in mainstream and alternative media. Snowball sampling then expanded the participant pool to include freelance journalists, citizen journalists, and community environmental monitors who operate outside formal journalism structures.

Selection criteria required participants to have at least one year of experience reporting on environmental issues in South Sulawesi, documented involvement in verification activities related to environmental claims, and willingness to discuss sensitive topics related to corporate disinformation and journalist safety. We deliberately sought participants representing different positions within journalism hierarchies (senior editors, mid-career reporters, early career journalists) and different organizational contexts (corporate media, independent publications, community media, freelance work) to ensure diverse perspectives on counter-disinformation strategies.

The final sample of 34 environmental journalists included 12 staff reporters at mainstream media organizations (newspapers, television, radio), 8 freelance journalists specializing in environmental coverage, 7 alternative media producers working with independent publications, and 7 citizen journalists affiliated with community organizations. Geographic distribution included 18 participants based in urban Makassar, 9 working in coastal and island communities, and 7 operating in mining-affected inland regions. Gender distribution reflected journalism demographics in the region, with 19 male and 15 female participants. Age ranges spanned from 24 to 58 years old, with professional experience ranging from 2 to 34 years in journalism.

Additional interviews were conducted with 15 community environmental monitors (fishers, farmers, traditional knowledge holders engaged in environmental documentation), 8 traditional governance authorities (adat leaders, religious figures involved in environmental stewardship), and 12 digital security practitioners working with environmental organizations. These supplementary interviews provided triangulation for journalist accounts and a deeper understanding of community verification processes.

3.4. Interview Protocols and Data Collection

Interview data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2019), which emphasizes researcher interpretation and theoretical development rather than simply coding surface content. The analysis proceeded through six phases adapted to our grounded theory framework. Initial familiarization involved repeated reading of interview transcripts while noting emerging patterns and surprises. Systematic coding identified data segments relevant to verification practices, disinformation encounters, and community collaboration. These codes were then grouped into preliminary themes representing broader patterns across participant experiences.

Theme development proceeded iteratively, with constant comparison between emerging themes and raw data to ensure grounding in participant accounts. Themes were refined through team discussion, with both researchers independently reviewing coded data and proposing theme structures. Discrepancies were resolved through collaborative analysis sessions where we examined supporting evidence and alternative interpretations. Final themes were named to capture their essential meanings while remaining accessible to diverse audiences.

To ensure analytical rigor, both researchers independently coded 30% of interview transcripts (12 complete interviews). Inter-coder reliability was calculated using Cohen’s kappa, achieving κ = 0.84, indicating strong agreement beyond chance. Disagreements were discussed and resolved through a collaborative review of contested passages, resulting in refined coding definitions that guided the analysis of the remaining transcripts.

Semi-structured interview protocols were designed to elicit detailed accounts of specific disinformation encounters, verification strategies, and community collaboration practices. Interviews emphasized journalist expertise while avoiding extractive research practices that might compromise professional relationships or community trust. Core questions explored how journalists first recognized corporate disinformation campaigns, what verification steps they employed, how they collaborated with community members, and what challenges they faced from both corporate actors and platform policies.

All interviews were conducted in Indonesian or local languages (Bugis-Makassar) depending on participant preference, with translation support provided by community research partners fluent in both languages and familiar with environmental terminology. Interviews ranged from 78 to 187 min, with an average duration of 124 min. All interviews were audio-recorded with explicit consent and transcribed verbatim in the original language before the selective translation of key passages into English for analysis and reporting.

3.5. Digital Platform Content Analysis

Systematic content analysis was conducted across multiple social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X, TikTok, and WhatsApp to track how environmental disinformation circulates and how journalists develop counter-narratives. The analysis integrated quantitative content classification with qualitative discourse analysis to capture both circulation patterns and meaning-making processes.

The quantitative codebook was developed through iterative process involving three phases. Initial exploratory coding of 200 randomly selected posts identified recurring themes and patterns in environmental disinformation. These preliminary findings informed codebook development, which categorized content across multiple dimensions: disinformation type (scientific misrepresentation, false attribution, manipulated visuals, emotional manipulation), source type (corporate accounts, fake community pages, influencer partnerships, bot networks), platform-specific features (sponsored content, viral mechanisms, algorithmic signals), and journalist counter-strategies (direct refutation, cultural reframing, community testimony, visual documentation).

Three trained coders independently analyzed 300 posts to establish intercoder reliability. Krippendorff’s alpha was calculated for each coding category, achieving α = 0.87 for disinformation type, α = 0.83 for source identification, α = 0.79 for platform features, and α = 0.81 for counterstrategies, all exceeding the 0.80 threshold for reliable conclusions. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and codebook refinement before full sample coding proceeded.

The complete dataset comprised 2847 social media posts identified through keyword tracking (environmental terms in Indonesian and Bugis-Makassar languages, names of extractive companies, local place names) and network analysis (accounts sharing environmental disinformation, journalist networks, community verification groups). Data collection spanned 14 months (February 2023–March 2024), capturing temporal patterns in disinformation campaigns and journalist responses.

Special attention was paid to how environmental disinformation adapts to different platform algorithms and how journalists modify their verification strategies accordingly. Platform-specific analysis revealed distinct disinformation patterns, with Facebook favoring pseudo-scientific content (43% of disinformation posts), Instagram emphasizing visual manipulation (67% of posts), TikTok utilizing entertainment framing (81% of posts), and WhatsApp deploying voice message campaigns (58% of forwarded content analyzed through participant reporting).

Disinformation tracking involved documented collaboration with Safenet Indonesia (a digital security organization) and the Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network (a fact-checking collective). Secure monitoring protocols were developed through three workshops involving researchers, digital security experts, and fact-checking practitioners. These protocols addressed ethical concerns about amplifying harmful content while maintaining research integrity.

Specifically, disinformation monitoring utilized private tracking systems rather than public engagement that might amplify false content. Platform data collection employed automated scraping tools configured to minimize platform notifications that might alert disinformation spreaders. Sensitive content was stored on encrypted devices with access limited to research team members. When documenting disinformation examples for analysis, researchers captured screenshots and archived content rather than sharing or republishing original posts. Fact-checking organizations provided verification of our disinformation classifications, ensuring that content identified as false indeed contained inaccurate environmental claims rather than simply alternative perspectives.

3.6. Participatory Verification Workshops

The research incorporated participatory action research principles through collaboration with environmental journalists to design and implement community-based verification workshops. These workshops provided opportunities to observe how journalists engage communities in counter-disinformation activities while contributing practical skills and resources to local verification capacity.

Four workshop series focused on community-based fact-checking, traditional knowledge documentation, digital security for verification activities, and collaborative investigation techniques. Workshop curricula were developed collaboratively with journalist organizations and adapted based on participant feedback and evolving disinformation campaigns.

Workshop activities served as research sites and contributions to community counter-disinformation capacity, following participatory action research principles that ensure that the research benefits participant communities rather than simply extracting information for academic purposes.

3.7. Ethical Considerations

This research was conducted with approval from the Institutional Review Board of Hasanuddin University (protocol code 2023-002-FISIP, approved 15 January 2023) and journalism professional organizations. Particular attention was paid to protecting the journalists’ identities, maintaining source confidentiality, and respecting traditional knowledge protocols. All research activities were designed to avoid compromising ongoing counter-disinformation activities or endangering participant safety.

Informed consent procedures emphasized voluntary participation, the right to withdraw, confidentiality protections, and potential risks related to corporate retaliation or government surveillance. Participants chose pseudonyms used in field notes and publications. Data security protocols included encrypted storage, secure communication channels, and restricted access limited to research team members.

Traditional knowledge protocols were developed in consultation with adat governance councils, ensuring that environmental knowledge shared during research respected cultural ownership and usage restrictions. Community consent was obtained before including traditional knowledge in publications, with communities retaining authority to request the removal of sensitive information even after manuscript submission.

4. Results

The following results directly address our three research questions by presenting our empirical findings organized thematically. Results Section 4.1, Section 4.2 and Section 4.3 primarily address RQ1 by documenting specific counter-disinformation mechanisms that operate independently of Western fact-checking systems. Section 4.4 and Section 4.5 respond to RQ2 by describing alternative verification models that emerge in response to platform manipulation. Section 4.6 and Section 4.7 address RQ3 by detailing traditional knowledge integration practices and their effectiveness for enhancing climate reporting credibility.

4.1. Corporate Environmental Disinformation Patterns

One senior environmental reporter at a Makassar newspaper described encountering coordinated disinformation: “Within hours of publishing our investigation about nickel mining water contamination, we saw fake community groups emerge on Facebook claiming local residents supported the mining. These were not real community voices, the language patterns were wrong, the profile photos were stock images, but they flooded our comment sections and got more engagement than our actual reporting.” (Journalist 7, mainstream media, 12 years’ experience). This account illustrates how corporate actors deploy fake grassroots content to create an appearance of community support while undermining investigative reporting.

On Facebook, corporate disinformation strategies include the creation of pseudo-scientific studies that appear credible to casual readers, the establishment of fake community pages that masquerade as grassroots environmental organizations, and coordinated reporting campaigns designed to suppress legitimate environmental journalism. Our content analysis identified 187 pseudo-scientific posts during the study period, with 73% receiving sponsored promotion to ensure wide distribution. These campaigns achieved high engagement through emotionally provocative content, with posts featuring development progress narratives receiving average engagement rates 3.4 times higher than environmental journalism content.

A freelance environmental journalist working in coastal communities explained the impact: “I spent three months documenting how shrimp farm expansion destroyed mangrove forests that protected our village from storm surge. But within a week of publishing, there were dozens of influencer posts showing modern shrimp farms as environmental success stories, complete with manipulated before-and-after photos that made the farms look like they increased forest cover. My story got 1200 views; their disinformation reached 340,000 people.” (Journalist 23, freelance, 6 years’ experience). This testimony demonstrates the scale disparity between journalist resources and corporate disinformation campaigns.

Instagram campaigns focus heavily on influencer partnerships with local social media personalities who promote extractive industry development projects as beneficial for community economic development. Our analysis identified 34 influencers receiving payment from mining companies to create environmental content, with partnerships disclosed in only 2 cases. Visual misinformation campaigns utilize professionally produced content that presents mining operations and plantation development as environmentally sustainable, often featuring manipulated or misleading imagery that contradicts actual environmental impacts. One documented case involved a mining company’s Instagram campaign showing drone footage of “restored” forest areas that were filmed in a national park 200 km from the actual mining site.

A traditional fishing community leader described how disinformation targets traditional knowledge: “Mining company representatives came to our village with scientists who said our traditional indicators of water health, the types of fish, the coral colors, were ‘unscientific’ and could not prove mining harm. They brought water test results claiming everything was safe. But our grandparents taught us to read the sea, and we know when something is wrong. The company used social media to say we were backwards, that we rejected progress.” (Community leader 4, coastal region, 43 years of traditional governance experience). This account reveals how corporate disinformation positions traditional environmental knowledge as illegitimate while promoting corporate science as objective.

TikTok represents a particularly sophisticated arena for corporate environmental disinformation, with campaigns specifically targeting users under 25 through entertainment-focused content that embeds pro-extraction messaging within viral challenges and trending audio clips. These campaigns exploit the platform’s algorithm, which demonstrably favors corporate content over environmental reporting that challenges extractive industry interests. Our analysis tracked 12 distinct viral trends initiated or amplified by corporate accounts, reaching combined audiences exceeding 8.7 million views, while environmental journalism content averaged 12,400 views per post.

WhatsApp campaigns utilize the platform’s peer-to-peer sharing mechanisms to distribute forwarded misinformation through trusted family and community networks. An alternative media journalist documented WhatsApp disinformation: “We tracked a voice message claiming that opposition to mining was funded by foreign NGOs trying to keep Indonesia poor. The message was professionally recorded but made to sound like a concerned local resident. It spread through 47 WhatsApp groups in three days, reaching an estimated 15,000 people in mining-affected communities. When we published fact-checks, they barely circulated. People trust messages from family members more than journalism.” (Journalist 14, alternative media, 8 years’ experience).

Twitter/X campaigns deploy sophisticated bot networks to amplify pro-extraction messaging while coordinating harassment campaigns against environmental journalists. Our network analysis identified 23 bot networks (defined as accounts with automated posting patterns, coordinated creation dates, and similar linguistic patterns) that collectively published 3847 tweets during major environmental news events, overwhelming authentic journalism content through volume flooding tactics.

Our systematic platform analysis reveals distinct disinformation patterns across different social media platforms, with corporate actors adapting strategies to exploit platform-specific algorithmic features and demographic compositions. Table 1 presents a comprehensive analysis of corporate environmental disinformation strategies across five major platforms, documenting specific disinformation tactics, algorithmic amplification mechanisms, targeted demographics, and journalist counter-strategies observed during our fieldwork period.

Table 1. Corporate Environmental Disinformation Patterns in South Sulawesi Social Media.

Platform	Disinformation Strategies	Algorithmic Amplification	Target Demographics	Counter-Strategies Observed
Facebook	Pseudo-scientific studies, fake community pages, coordinated reporting campaigns	High engagement through emotional content, sponsored promotion	Mixed age groups, rural emphasis	Community verification groups, traditional knowledge framing
Instagram	Influencer partnerships, visual misinformation, development propaganda	Visual content prioritization, engagement-based distribution	Under 35, urban focus	Environmental photography, cultural symbols
TikTok	Youth-targeted content, entertainment framing, viral challenges	Algorithm favors corporate content over environmental reporting	Under 25, entertainment focus	Creative environmental education, cultural preservation
WhatsApp	Forwarded misinformation, private group targeting, voice message campaigns	Peer-to-peer sharing, trusted network distribution	All age groups, family networks	Verification protocols, community fact-checking
Twitter/X	Bot networks, coordinated harassment, trending manipulation	Engagement metrics, verified account privileges	Urban professionals, activists	Alternative hashtags, thread documentation

As Table 1 demonstrates, corporate disinformation strategies vary significantly across platforms, with each platform requiring distinct counterstrategies from environmental journalists. The algorithmic amplification patterns documented in the table reveal systematic bias favoring corporate-sponsored content over environmental journalism across all platforms examined.

4.2. Community-Based Verification Networks Emerge from Crisis

The concept of “verification archipelagos” emerged inductively from our observation of how journalists and communities responded to a specific disinformation crisis in July 2023. A mining company launched a coordinated campaign claiming that water contamination reported by journalists was caused by traditional fishing practices rather than mining runoff. This campaign utilized fake scientific reports, paid influencers, and bot amplification across multiple platforms.

In response, environmental journalists spontaneously organized cross-community verification meetings that brought together fishers from five affected villages, traditional water quality experts, independent scientists, and citizen journalists. These meetings established collaborative verification protocols that integrated traditional water quality indicators (fish behavior, coral health, taste and smell assessments based on generations of knowledge) with contemporary scientific testing (pH levels, heavy metal content, bacterial counts). The resulting verification report, co-authored by community members and journalists, successfully countered the disinformation campaign because it carried authority from both traditional knowledge systems and scientific methods.

One participating journalist described this turning point: “We realized that individual fact-checking was failing because corporate campaigns overwhelmed our capacity and undermined our authority. But when we brought together traditional knowledge holders, community monitors, and multiple journalists, we created something companies could not easily attack. They could not dismiss traditional knowledge without offending local communities, and they could not dismiss scientific testing without revealing their bias. The networked approach was more resilient than any individual effort.” (Journalist 19, environmental news website, 11 years’ experience).

Following this initial success, journalists and communities deliberately developed more formalized verification network structures that we termed “verification archipelagos” to capture their distinctive characteristics: geographic distribution across island and coastal communities, non-hierarchical organization that respects diverse knowledge authorities, and flexible adaptation to different verification needs while maintaining core principles of community authority and traditional knowledge integration.

Environmental journalists have developed sophisticated community-based verification networks that operate independently of corporate-controlled fact-checking systems. Our fieldwork documented five distinct network types; each adapted to specific environmental challenges and community contexts.

Coastal monitoring networks represent one category of verification infrastructure, comprising 8 to 25 fishers and environmental monitors working across island communities. In the Spermonde Islands, the “Guardians of the Sea” network involves 19 traditional fishers who document environmental changes using GPS-enabled smartphones integrated with traditional sasi calendar systems. As one network coordinator explained, “Our grandfathers could read the sea through fish behavior and coral health. Now we photograph what they taught us to see and share it with other islands through WhatsApp. When mining companies claim there’s no environmental impact, we have months of documentation showing exactly how the coral is dying, and which fish species have disappeared.” (Community monitor 7, coastal region, 23 years of fishing experience).

These networks utilize seasonal observation methods integrated with GPS documentation to track environmental changes while incorporating traditional sasi system knowledge and cultural indicators that provide historical context often unavailable through contemporary scientific monitoring. Verification protocols involve monthly community meetings where monitors present documented evidence, traditional authorities validate observations against long-term knowledge, and consensus is reached about environmental changes. Our observation of three such meetings revealed sophisticated deliberation processes that weighted different types of evidence according to culturally appropriate protocols while maintaining scientific rigor.

Mining impact tracking networks involve 12 to 40 community members across regional mining areas who conduct water quality testing and health documentation activities. The Luwu Valley monitoring collective includes 28 residents who systematically document water quality changes near nickel mining operations. Members collect water samples weekly from 15 locations, conducting basic field tests (pH, turbidity, temperature) while preserving samples for quarterly laboratory analysis coordinated with independent environmental organizations.

One collective member described their verification process: “The mining company publishes water quality reports claiming everything meets standards, but they test in different locations and at convenient times. We test where people get their drinking water and where children swim. Our traditional elders taught us that certain plants grow only in clean water. When those plants die, we know something is wrong, even before laboratory tests confirm it.” (Community monitor 11, mining-affected area, 15 years of monitoring experience).

The effectiveness of these verification networks can be assessed through multiple metrics documented during our research period. First, temporal efficiency: community-based networks identified and documented corporate environmental misinformation with a median response time of 16 h, compared to 5–7 days for external fact-checking organizations. This rapid response prevented misinformation from achieving viral spread in 87% of documented cases (27 out of 31 major corporate disinformation campaigns tracked during fieldwork).

Second, community trust indicators: when environmental claims were verified through community networks integrating traditional knowledge, residents expressed trust in the findings at 73% higher rates compared to external scientific assessments or mainstream media reporting (based on a survey of 340 community members across fieldwork sites conducted in January 2024). As one community leader explained: “When our own people, who our grandparents taught, verify the information together with journalists, we believe it. When outsiders tell us what is true, even if they are scientists, we are suspicious because we have been lied to before.” (Traditional authority 3, adat council member, 31 years of governance experience).

Third, policy impact: verification reports produced by community-journalist networks were cited in 12 environmental policy decisions during the research period, including 3 mining permit suspensions, 5 environmental impact assessment challenges, and 4 community environmental rights recognitions. This compares to zero policy citations for individual journalist reports or external fact-checks during the same period.

Fourth, network resilience: despite 34 documented corporate harassment campaigns targeting verification network members (including 12 legal threats, 18 social media attacks, and 4 physical intimidation incidents), networks maintained operational continuity with no permanent member withdrawals and 23 new member additions across all networks. The distributed, non-hierarchical structure prevented single-point failures that often disable centralized fact-checking efforts.

The effectiveness of these verification networks emerges from their integration of multiple knowledge systems and security measures across different geographic scales and community contexts. Table 2 provides detailed documentation of five distinct verification network types documented during our fieldwork, showing how membership composition, geographic scope, verification methods, traditional knowledge integration, and digital security measures vary across different environmental monitoring contexts.

Table 2. Verification Network Structures and Traditional Knowledge Integration.

Network Type	Membership	Geographic Scope	Verification Methods	Traditional Knowledge Role	Digital Security Measures
Coastal monitoring	8–25 fishers and monitors	Island communities	Seasonal observations, GPS documentation	Sasi system integration, traditional indicators	Encrypted messaging, secure documentation
Mining impact tracking	12–40 community members	Regional mining areas	Water quality testing, health documentation	Adat governance consultation, cultural protocols	Anonymous reporting, legal protection
Agricultural surveillance	15–35 farmers and monitors	Rural agricultural areas	Crop monitoring, soil documentation	Traditional farming knowledge, seasonal patterns	Coordinated data sharing, community protection
Urban environmental	20–50 activists and journalists	Metropolitan areas	Air quality monitoring, policy tracking	Traditional urban knowledge, cultural practices	Platform coordination, alternative networks
Multi-community networks	30–100 diverse participants	Provincial/regional	Cross-verification, collaborative investigation	Inter-community knowledge exchange, cultural respect	Advanced encryption, legal support

Table 2 reveals systematic patterns in how verification networks adapt their structures to specific environmental monitoring needs while maintaining core principles of traditional knowledge integration and digital security. The variation in membership size, geographic scope, and verification methods across network types demonstrates the adaptive flexibility that characterizes the archipelago model.

4.3. Traditional Knowledge Integration Protocols

Environmental journalists demonstrate innovative approaches to integrating traditional environmental knowledge with contemporary verification practices, developing specific protocols that respect traditional knowledge authority while producing evidence credible within contemporary policy and scientific frameworks.

Seasonal verification cycles reflect an adaptation of journalism practice to traditional environmental observation methods. One environmental journalist described aligning reporting with the traditional agricultural calendar: “I learned that our adat calendar marks specific times when environmental changes become visible, the first rains, the fish spawning season, and the harvest time. If I want to verify claims about agricultural impacts from mining, I need to observe and report during these traditional observation periods, not according to editorial calendars or my personal schedule. This taught me patience and respect for how communities understand time differently.” (Journalist 9, freelance, 7 years’ experience).

Our observation of seasonal verification cycles documented a specific case involving plantation expansion impacts. Journalists coordinated with traditional agricultural experts to conduct field verification during three key agricultural calendar periods: pre-planting assessment (February), mid-growth observation (May), and harvest evaluation (August). Each verification cycle integrated traditional soil quality indicators (earthworm presence, soil smell and texture, wild plant diversity) with contemporary testing (nitrogen levels, pH balance, pesticide residue). This temporal integration produced more comprehensive documentation than single-point scientific assessments, revealing cumulative impacts that snapshot testing missed.

Language integration involves sophisticated strategies for incorporating traditional environmental terminology into contemporary reporting. Journalists working with traditional knowledge holders developed specific translation protocols to maintain cultural meaning while ensuring accessibility. One protocol documented during fieldwork involves three-stage translation: (1) traditional knowledge holders explain environmental concepts in local languages with full cultural context; (2) journalists work with cultural advisors to identify appropriate translations that preserve conceptual meaning rather than literal word-for-word conversion; (3) draft translations are reviewed by traditional authorities who verify that meaning remains intact before publication.

A specific example involves the Bugis concept of “panrita lino” (literally “earth reader”), which encompasses sophisticated environmental observation methods integrating astronomical, botanical, oceanographic, and meteorological knowledge. Rather than translating this as a simple “environmental expert”, journalists developed explanatory phrases that convey the holistic knowledge system: “traditional environmental observers who read interconnected natural signs.” As one journalist explained: “If I just write ‘expert’, readers think it is like a university professor. But panrita lino’s knowledge is different, it comes from generations, from watching patterns, from understanding relationships between things that Western science often studies separately.” (Journalist 28, alternative media, 9 years’ experience).

Collaborative documentation processes demonstrate how environmental journalists support traditional knowledge preservation while developing verification resources that strengthen community environmental advocacy. During fieldwork, we observed a six-month collaborative documentation project in coastal communities developing a digital archive of traditional marine ecosystem indicators. This project involved five environmental journalists, twelve traditional fishers, three adat council members, and two marine biologists.

The documentation process followed strict protocols developed by traditional authorities: (1) Traditional knowledge could only be shared during appropriate cultural times and settings, with ceremonies performed before documentation sessions; (2) Sensitive traditional knowledge identified by elders remained undocumented or documented with access restrictions controlled by traditional authorities; (3) All documented knowledge remained under traditional governance control, with journalists serving as facilitators rather than owners; (4) Documentation methods integrated traditional storytelling approaches (oral history recordings, community demonstrations) with contemporary formats (video documentation, written guides).

One participating traditional fisher described the process: “At first, I worried that sharing our knowledge with journalists would mean outsiders would steal it or disrespect it. But the journalists showed they understood that this knowledge belongs to our community, our ancestors. They helped us record it in ways that preserve our authority while making it possible to use this knowledge to fight against corporate lies about environmental impacts.” (Community monitor 5, fishing community, 38 years of traditional practice).

The resulting archive serves multiple purposes: maintaining traditional knowledge for future generations, providing verification resources for environmental reporting, offering evidence for environmental policy advocacy, and educating younger community members in traditional environmental observation methods. During the research period, this archive was cited in the verification of 23 environmental claims, contributed to 7 journalist investigations, and was accessed 340 times by community members and 89 times by educational institutions.

Community consent protocols ensure that traditional knowledge integration serves community environmental advocacy rather than external appropriation. Environmental journalists working with traditional knowledge holders have developed elaborate consent processes documented through the observation of 15 consent negotiation sessions during fieldwork.

The protocol involves multiple stages: (1) Initial consultation with traditional governance councils explaining research or journalism purposes, proposed knowledge usage, and community benefits; (2) Community deliberation period (typically 2–4 weeks) allowing for discussion without external pressure; (3) Formal consent ceremony following traditional protocols, often involving symbolic acts (sharing betel nut, traditional prayers) that bind all parties to commitments; (4) Ongoing consultation during knowledge documentation with the authority to halt or redirect activities if concerns emerge; (5) Pre-publication review by traditional authorities with the power to request modifications or removal of sensitive content; (6) Post-publication accountability including sharing published materials with communities and responding to community feedback.

One journalist described learning these protocols: “Western journalism ethics say we protect sources, but we control how information is used once it is given to us. Traditional knowledge protocols are different the community retains control even after sharing knowledge with me. I had to learn that I am not the owner of the story, I am the facilitator helping the community tell their story in ways that reach policy makers and broader audiences. This shift in my understanding of journalistic authority was uncomfortable but necessary.” (Journalist 16, environmental news website, 8 years’ experience).

Analysis of consent protocol implementation revealed measurable impacts on traditional knowledge preservation and community empowerment. Of the 47 journalist-community collaborations documented during fieldwork, 38 utilized formal consent protocols while 9 operated with informal agreements. Projects using formal protocols demonstrated significantly higher community satisfaction (4.7 vs. 3.1 on 5-point scale, n = 156 community participants surveyed), greater likelihood of continued collaboration (89% vs. 44% willingness to work with journalists again), and higher rates of traditional knowledge transmission to younger generations (67% of protocol-based projects resulted in formal educational activities vs. 22% of informal projects).

4.4. Algorithmic Resistance Strategies

Environmental journalists demonstrate sophisticated strategies for combating algorithmic suppression of environmental content while maintaining audience reach across corporate-controlled platforms. These strategies reveal innovative approaches to “algorithmic resistance” that exploit platform features while reducing vulnerability to corporate censorship campaigns.

Our thematic analysis of interview data and platform content revealed four primary algorithmic resistance strategies employed by environmental journalists: cultural framing, temporal coordination, cross-platform coordination, and community amplification. Each strategy emerged from journalist experimentation and adaptation to platform algorithm changes, representing grounded responses to specific censorship experiences rather than predetermined approaches.

Cultural Framing Strategy (Theme 1): Journalists modify content presentation to embed environmental information within cultural and religious frameworks that evade algorithmic suppression while maintaining editorial integrity. One journalist explained discovering this strategy: “I published a story about mining pollution using scientific language and data. Facebook showed it to maybe 800 people. Then I republished the same information but framed it using Islamic environmental stewardship concepts, with quotes from Quranic verses about protecting Allah’s creation. That version reached 18,000 people organically. The algorithm did not recognize it as ‘political’ environmental content, so it was not suppressed.” (Journalist 12, mainstream media, 9 years’ experience).

Our content analysis quantified this effect: environmental posts using cultural or religious framing achieved 156% higher organic reach compared to posts using scientific or political framing (median reach 8340 vs. 3350, n = 427 posts analyzed). The algorithmic advantage appears to result from these posts avoiding keywords and content patterns that trigger environmental content suppression while generating high engagement through cultural resonance.

Temporal Coordination Strategy (Theme 2): Journalists time content distribution to exploit algorithmic patterns while minimizing corporate counter-campaign exposure. Environmental journalists discovered that the corporate monitoring of environmental journalism operates according to business hours, with most counter-disinformation responses deployed during weekday working hours. By publishing sensitive environmental investigations on Friday evenings or during religious holidays, journalists create 24–48 h windows for organic story circulation before corporate counter-campaigns activate.

One journalist described this tactical approach: “We investigated illegal mining in a protected area. If we published Monday morning, corporate PR teams would have counter-narratives ready by afternoon. We published on Friday evening before the Ramadan holiday. By the time company responses appeared on Wednesday, our story had already been shared 4300 times and picked up by national media. The temporal advantage gave truth time to spread before lies could catch up.” (Journalist 21, freelance, 5 years’ experience).

Cross-Platform Coordination Strategy (Theme 3): Journalists maintain a presence across multiple platforms with adapted content strategies, creating resilient distribution systems immune to platform-specific censorship. Our social network analysis mapped journalist cross-platform presence, revealing that successful environmental journalists maintained active accounts on average 4.2 platforms simultaneously (range 3–7 platforms), compared to 2.1 platforms for journalists who reported frequent censorship challenges.

Cross-platform coordination enables strategic content differentiation. As one journalist explained: “On Facebook, I share community-focused environmental stories with cultural framing. On Twitter, I publish quick updates about corporate actions and policy decisions. On Instagram, I post environmental photography with subtle captions. On WhatsApp, I coordinate with other journalists and community monitors. If one platform suppresses or suspends my content, I still have three other channels communicating with different audiences.” (Journalist 25, alternative media, 11 years’ experience).

Community Amplification Strategy (Theme 4): Journalists develop content specifically designed for community sharing, recognizing that peer-to-peer circulation through trusted networks overcomes algorithmic suppression more effectively than journalistic authority. Environmental journalists create “shareable” content formats that community members willingly distribute through their networks: infographics with local language text, short video testimonies from community members, audio explanations suitable for WhatsApp voice message sharing, and simplified fact-sheets addressing common disinformation claims.

One journalist described designing for shareability: “I realized people do not share my 2000-word investigative articles, no matter how important. But they share a 90 s video of their neighbor explaining how the mining affects their well water. So, I train community members to document their own experiences, then I help edit and verify their content. This community-created content spreads organically through networks that would never see my journalism.” (Journalist 31, citizen journalism facilitator, 6 years’ experience).

Our platform analysis tracked content propagation patterns, revealing that community-created content facilitated by journalists achieved a 3.7 times wider distribution compared to journalist-created content (median unique reach 12,400 vs. 3350, n = 283 pieces of content tracked). This amplification advantage stems from authentic community voices carrying greater trust within social networks while avoiding platform categorization as “media content” subject to suppression.

4.5. Network Success Metrics and Comparative Analysis

To systematically evaluate verification network effectiveness, we developed multiple assessment metrics based on community-identified priorities, journalistic professional standards, and policy impact indicators. This multi-dimensional approach responds to the reality that “success” in counter-disinformation work encompasses community empowerment, journalistic accuracy, policy influence, and network sustainability.

Temporal Efficiency Metric: Community-based verification networks demonstrated significantly faster response times compared to external fact-checking. Across 31 documented corporate disinformation campaigns during fieldwork, community networks achieved a median identification time of 4 h (range 1–18 h) and a median verification completion time of 16 h (range 6–72 h). This compares to median response times of 5–7 days for external Indonesian fact-checking organizations and 3–5 days for international fact-checking platforms. The speed advantage derives from distributed monitoring capacity and reduced institutional bureaucracy.

Verification Accuracy Metric: To assess accuracy, we tracked verification outcomes for 89 environmental claims verified by community networks during fieldwork. Subsequent developments (corporate admission, policy findings, independent scientific studies) confirmed network verification accuracy in 94% of cases (84 of 89 claims). The 5 disputed cases involved complex technical issues where both community and corporate claims contained partial truths. No community verification was subsequently proven entirely false. This 94% accuracy rate equals or exceeds the accuracy rates reported for professional fact-checking organizations in similar contexts.

Community Trust Metric: Survey data from 340 community members across fieldwork sites (conducted January 2024, 89% response rate) revealed that environmental information verified through community-journalist networks received significantly higher trust ratings compared to alternative sources. On 5-point Likert scales, community-verified information averaged a 4.3 trust rating, compared to 3.7 for mainstream media reporting, 3.2 for government environmental statements, 2.8 for corporate environmental claims, and 2.5 for international NGO reports. This trust advantage reflects both familiar verification processes and community authority over verification outcomes.

Policy Impact Metric: Verification reports produced through community-journalist collaboration achieved substantially higher policy influence compared to individual journalism or external advocacy. During the research period, community-verified reports were cited in 12 environmental policy decisions (3 mining permit suspensions, 5 environmental impact assessment challenges, 4 community environmental rights recognitions), compared to zero policy citations for individual journalist reports or external fact-checks during the same period. Policy officials interviewed explained that community-collaborative reports carried greater political legitimacy because they represented authentic community positions rather than external advocacy agendas.

Network Resilience Metric: Despite systematic corporate harassment targeting network members, verification networks maintained operational continuity throughout the research period. Documentation of harassment incidents included 12 legal threats (cease-and-desist letters, defamation warnings), 18 social media attacks (coordinated harassment campaigns, doxing attempts), and 4 physical intimidation incidents (threatening visits, surveillance). Zero permanent member withdrawals resulted from harassment, while 23 new members joined networks during the same period. This resilience derives from a distributed network structure that prevents single-point failures and community protection mechanisms that shield individual members.

Cost Efficiency Metric: Community-based verification networks operate at substantially lower costs compared to institutional fact-checking. Our assessment of network operational costs (equipment, communication, training, legal protection) revealed average monthly expenditures of $340 per network (range $180–$620, n = 8 networks assessed). This compares to reported monthly operating costs of $8000–$15,000 for professional fact-checking organizations in Indonesia. The cost advantage enables verification network sustainability without dependence on external funding that might compromise independence.

Comparative Advantage Analysis: To directly compare community-based approaches with alternative counter-disinformation models, we conducted a structured comparison across key dimensions presented in Table 3 below. This analysis revealed the distinct strengths of verification archipelagos, particularly regarding community trust, cultural appropriateness, and resilience against corporate pressure, while acknowledging limitations in geographic reach and formal institutional recognition.

Table 3. Comparative Analysis of Counter-Disinformation Approaches.

Dimension	Community Verification Networks	Professional Fact-Checking	Government Regulatory	Corporate Platform Moderation
Response Speed	Rapid (4–16 h)	Moderate (3–7 days)	Slow (weeks months)	Variable (minutes-never)
Verification Accuracy	High (94%)	High (91–95%)	Variable	Low (40–60%)
Community Trust	Very High (4.3/5.0)	Moderate (3.7/5.0)	Low (3.2/5.0)	Very Low (2.5/5.0)
Cultural Appropriateness	High (indigenous methods)	Low (Western frameworks)	Low (bureaucratic)	Very Low (algorithmic)
Policy Impact	High (12 citations)	Low (0–2 citations)	Direct but politicized	None
Cost Efficiency	Very High ($340/month)	Low ($8–15k/month)	Government funded	Corporate funded
Geographic Reach	Limited (local communities)	Moderate (national)	Wide (national)	Global
Corporate Pressure Resistance	High (distributed structure)	Moderate (institutional protection)	Low (regulatory capture)	None (corporate controlled)
Sustainability	High (community ownership)	Low (funding dependent)	Variable (political)	High (profit motivated)

4.6. Challenges and Adaptations in Verification Networks

While verification networks demonstrated significant successes, our research also documented substantial challenges and ongoing adaptations that reveal the complexity of counter-disinformation work in resource-constrained, politically contested contexts.

Digital Divide Challenges: Network operations face persistent challenges related to uneven internet access and digital literacy across island and coastal communities. One network coordinator described: “We have members in outer islands where internet connection is unreliable. They can document environmental changes with their phones, but uploading videos takes hours or sometimes fails completely. During major disinformation campaigns, these communities cannot participate in real-time verification, creating geographic gaps that corporate actors exploit.” (Network coordinator 2, coastal region, 9 years’ organizing experience).

Documentation of connectivity challenges during fieldwork revealed that 34% of community monitors reported regular internet access problems (multiple times weekly), while 67% identified mobile data costs as significant barriers to sustained participation. Networks adapted by developing offline documentation protocols using SD card transfers and scheduled upload sessions when internet connectivity permits, but these workarounds reduce temporal advantages over corporate disinformation.

Gendered Participation Barriers: Despite intentions for inclusive participation, verification networks reproduce gender inequalities prevalent in both journalism and traditional governance. Of 156 active network participants documented across all networks, only 38% were women (59 female participants). Female participants reported specific barriers, including domestic responsibilities limiting meeting attendance, cultural norms discouraging women from speaking in mixed-gender verification sessions, and safety concerns about fieldwork in remote areas.

One female environmental journalist explained: “When verification meetings happen in the evening after fieldwork, I often cannot attend because I need to care for children and prepare family meals. Male colleagues can stay late discussing verification protocols, while women’s knowledge and observations get excluded from decisions. This is not intentional discrimination, but it is structural inequality that networks have not effectively addressed.” (Journalist 29, alternative media, 7 years’ experience).

Some networks developed adaptations, including women-only verification subgroups, daytime meeting scheduling, childcare provision during meetings, and explicit protocols requiring gender-balanced representation in decision-making. However, these adaptations remained inconsistent across networks, with 5 out of 8 documented networks implementing gender equity measures while 3 maintained male-dominated structures.

Resource Constraints: Verification networks operate with minimal financial resources, creating sustainability challenges and limiting operational capacity. Equipment needs (cameras, water testing kits, GPS devices, mobile data) frequently exceed the available budgets. Legal expenses from corporate harassment campaigns strain network resources, with documented legal defense costs ranging from $800–$3200 per incident across 12 harassment cases during fieldwork.

One network member described resource struggles: “We need better water testing equipment to produce verification reports that policy makers will accept as credible evidence. The basic field test kits we can afford detect obvious contamination, but mining companies dismiss our findings as amateurish. Professional laboratory testing costs $200 per sample we conducted 47 tests last year, spending $9400, which came from member contributions and one small grant. We need ten times that budget to comprehensively document pollution.” (Community monitor 8, mining-affected area, 6 years of monitoring experience).

Institutional Recognition Gaps: Despite demonstrated effectiveness, verification networks face persistent challenges gaining formal recognition from government institutions, mainstream media, and scientific establishments. Policy officials interviewed expressed skepticism about community-based verification: “Community perspectives are valuable, but environmental decisions require scientific rigor and regulatory compliance that community monitors may not understand. We need evidence that meets government standards, conducted by certified professionals.” (Government official 2, environmental agency, 12 years’ policy experience). This institutional bias toward credentialed expertise over community knowledge limits policy impact despite network verification accuracy.

Mainstream media organizations similarly hesitate to prominently feature verification network findings. One newspaper editor explained: “Our editorial standards require multiple independent sources for environmental claims. Community verification networks have participation from local journalists, but we cannot cite ‘community network’ as an authoritative source the way we cite university scientists or government agencies. This is not dismissing community knowledge; it is about maintaining journalistic credibility with readers who expect certain evidentiary standards.” (Editor 1, major newspaper, 18 years of editorial experience).

Networks adapt to institutional recognition gaps by developing hybrid verification approaches that combine community documentation with formal scientific testing, securing endorsements from recognized environmental organizations, and cultivating relationships with sympathetic academics who can validate network methods and findings within institutional frameworks.

4.7. Synthesis: Verification Archipelagos as Alternative Epistemology

The patterns documented across verification network operations, traditional knowledge integration protocols, and algorithmic resistance strategies reveal verification archipelagos as fundamentally alternative epistemological systems that challenge dominant frameworks for establishing environmental truth claims.

Traditional Western fact-checking models position credentialed experts as ultimate arbiters of truth, utilizing institutional authority (scientific credentials, journalistic professionalism, regulatory power) to validate claims. Community verification networks operate according to different epistemic principles: distributed authority across multiple knowledge systems, emphasis on long-term observation over snapshot assessment, prioritization of practical environmental impacts over abstract measurements, and validation through community consensus rather than expert decree.

One senior environmental journalist described their epistemic transformation: “I was trained that good journalism means finding the scientific expert who knows the truth and reporting what they say. Working with community networks taught me that environmental truth is more complex it emerges from multiple ways of knowing. Traditional fishers know things about reef health that marine biologists miss because they’ve watched the same reef for 40 years. Community members know about health impacts because they live with contamination daily, not because they have medical degrees. My role is not choosing which expert to believe; it is facilitating dialogue between different knowledge systems to arrive at a more complete understanding.” (Journalist 18, environmental news website, 14 years’ experience).

This alternative epistemology enables verification archipelagos to resist corporate disinformation more effectively than conventional approaches precisely because it does not depend on authorities that corporations can discredit or institutions they can influence. When mining company scientists dispute water quality findings, community networks respond not by finding competing scientists (an arms race, community members cannot win) but by asserting traditional knowledge authority that corporations cannot easily challenge without appearing culturally insensitive.

The archipelago metaphor, which emerged from participant descriptions of their networks, captures this epistemological distinctiveness: multiple islands (knowledge systems, communities, verification methods) maintaining individual identities while connected through regular communication and mutual support, creating a resilient ecosystem that persists despite damage to individual components. This contrasts sharply with mainland (Western institutional) fact-checking models that concentrate authority in central institutions vulnerable to capture or destruction.

The tables presented earlier in the results section systematically document the patterns revealed through analysis. Table 1 presents a comprehensive analysis of corporate environmental disinformation strategies across major social media platforms, revealing how extractive industries adapt messaging to exploit platform-specific algorithmic features while targeting particular demographic groups most effectively. Table 2 provides detailed documentation of verification network structures, demonstrating how different types of community-based verification systems integrate traditional knowledge with digital security measures across various geographic scales and community contexts. Table 3 offers a comparative analysis across counter-disinformation approaches, highlighting the distinct advantages of verification archipelagos, particularly regarding community trust, cultural appropriateness, and resilience against corporate pressure while acknowledging limitations in geographic reach and formal institutional recognition.

5. Discussion

This section interprets our findings in relation to the three research questions posed at the study’s outset, connecting empirical observations to existing theoretical frameworks while articulating the distinctive contributions of verification archipelagos to counter-disinformation scholarship.

5.1. Independence from Western Fact-Checking Systems

Our first research question asked how environmental journalists develop counter-disinformation strategies that operate independently of Western-dominated fact-checking systems while maintaining verification accuracy. The findings reveal that independence emerges not from rejection of verification rigor but from epistemic pluralism that positions multiple knowledge systems as equally valid evidence sources.

This finding extends and challenges existing fact-checking literature (Vraga & Bode, 2020), which predominantly assumes centralized, expert-driven models as optimal approaches. While scholars like Graves (Graves, 2016) document how professional fact-checking emerged from journalistic authority claims and scientific rationality, our research reveals alternative pathways to verification credibility rooted in community knowledge, authority, and traditional observation methods. The 94% verification accuracy achieved by community networks (Section 4.5) demonstrates that epistemic pluralism does not compromise rigor; indeed, it may enhance accuracy by incorporating environmental observations unavailable through conventional scientific monitoring.

The mechanisms enabling verification independence documented in Section 4.2 and Section 4.3 align with Wenzel (2020) Community Information and Trust model regarding how local information networks build credibility through sustained community engagement. However, our findings reveal additional dimensions absent from existing community journalism literature: explicit integration of traditional knowledge systems as co-equal verification sources, sophisticated digital security protocols designed to counter corporate surveillance, and distributed network structures that prevent institutional capture. These elements transform community engagement from journalistic sourcing practice into a fundamental reimagining of how environmental truth claims achieve legitimacy.

The success metrics documented in Section 4.5, particularly community trust indicators showing 73% higher confidence in community-verified information compared to external sources, suggest that verification independence from Western institutional authority may strengthen rather than weaken credibility in contexts where colonial histories have undermined trust in external expertise. This finding contributes to decolonial media scholarship (de Sousa Santos, 2014; Mignolo, 2011) by demonstrating empirically how epistemic decolonization enhances rather than compromises knowledge production quality.

However, the independence of verification archipelagos from Western institutional frameworks also creates challenges for achieving policy influence within governmental systems that privilege credentialed expertise. As documented in Section 4.6, policy officials often dismiss community-verified findings as lacking “scientific rigor” despite demonstrated accuracy, revealing how colonial knowledge hierarchies persist in regulatory frameworks even when community verification proves empirically superior. This tension suggests that epistemic independence, while strengthening community trust and verification accuracy, may paradoxically limit policy impact unless accompanied by institutional reforms recognizing multiple knowledge systems as legitimate evidence.

5.2. Alternative Verification Models and Platform Manipulation

Our second research question examined what alternative verification models emerge when mainstream platforms systematically amplify corporate environmental misinformation. The findings reveal archipelagos as distributed, horizontally organized networks that achieve resilience through structural diversity rather than institutional concentration.

This structural innovation addresses limitations identified in platform governance literature (Bucher, 2018; Huszar et al., 2022) regarding how algorithmic systems privilege corporate content while marginalizing journalism critical of powerful interests. While scholars Noble (2018) and Benjamin (2020) document how algorithmic bias reproduces structural inequalities, our research reveals how marginalized communities can develop strategic responses that exploit platform features while maintaining editorial autonomy.

The algorithmic resistance strategies documented in Section 4.4, particularly cultural framing, achieving 156% higher organic reach and temporal coordination enabling story circulation before corporate counter-campaigns, represent practical responses to algorithmic suppression that extend existing resistance scholarship (Gillespie, 2018; Huszar et al., 2022). These findings contribute empirical specificity to largely theoretical discussions of algorithmic resistance, demonstrating measurable effectiveness of specific tactics while revealing their grounding in local cultural knowledge and community coordination capacity.

The comparative analysis in Table 1 reveals that alternative verification models sacrifice certain advantages of institutional fact-checking (particularly geographic reach and formal recognition) while gaining other capabilities (rapid response, community trust, resilience against corporate pressure). This trade-off suggests that optimal counter-disinformation ecosystems may require diverse approaches rather than singular solutions, a finding with implications for platform governance policy that currently emphasizes centralized content moderation over distributed community verification.

Our documentation of cross-platform coordination strategies (Section 4.4) extends platform studies scholarship (Hands, 2011; Treré, 2019) by revealing how journalists navigate platform-specific constraints through strategic diversification. The finding that successful environmental journalists maintain an active presence on an average of 4.2 platforms simultaneously suggests that counter-disinformation effectiveness increasingly requires multi-platform literacy and coordination capacity rather than mastery of individual platforms.

These findings contribute to ongoing debates about platform regulation and content moderation policy. Current regulatory approaches emphasizing platform liability for harmful content implicitly assume centralized moderation capacity and expert authority to determine truth. Our research suggests that alternative regulatory frameworks support distributed verification networks and recognize community-based fact-checking as a legitimate content moderation approach, particularly for environmental information where corporate conflicts of interest systematically bias centralized systems.

5.3. Traditional Knowledge Integration and Epistemic Colonialism

Our third research question explored how journalists integrate traditional knowledge systems with digital verification practices while resisting epistemic colonialism. The detailed protocols documented in Section 4.3 reveal integration as ongoing negotiation rather than simple combination, requiring continuous attention to power dynamics and knowledge ownership.

These findings contribute substantively to decolonial media scholarship (de Sousa Santos, 2014; Grosfoguel, 2013; Mignolo, 2011; Quijano, 2000) by providing empirical documentation of how epistemic decolonization operates in practice. While scholars like de Sousa Santos (2014) and Mignolo (2011) articulate theoretical frameworks for recognizing multiple epistemologies, our research demonstrates specific mechanisms through which journalists and communities navigate power asymmetries to maintain indigenous knowledge authority within contemporary media contexts.

The consent protocols documented in Section 4.3, particularly requirements for community review authority and ongoing knowledge control even after publication, fundamentally challenge Western journalistic ethics that position journalists as information gatekeepers once sources provide information. This finding extends journalism ethics scholarship by revealing how decolonial practice requires rethinking fundamental assumptions about journalist–source relationships and knowledge ownership.

The effectiveness metrics presented in Section 4.3, showing that projects using formal consent protocols achieved significantly higher community satisfaction (4.7 vs. 3.1 on a 5-point scale) and a greater likelihood of continued collaboration (89% vs. 44%), demonstrate that ethical traditional knowledge integration produces practical benefits beyond moral imperatives. Communities engage more deeply and sustain participation when their knowledge authority is respected, suggesting that epistemic justice enhances rather than constrains counter-disinformation effectiveness.

Our documentation of seasonal verification cycles aligning journalism practice with traditional observation periods challenges temporal assumptions embedded in news production. The finding that temporal integration produced more comprehensive environmental documentation than snapshot scientific assessment reveals how indigenous time concepts, often dismissed as incompatible with contemporary journalism, enhance verification rigor when properly integrated.

The traditional knowledge integration protocols documented here offer models adaptable beyond environmental journalism to other domains where indigenous knowledge systems provide crucial insights marginalized by Western epistemologies. Health reporting, agricultural journalism, and disaster preparedness coverage might benefit from similar integration approaches that position traditional knowledge as a co-equal verification source rather than supplementary or anecdotal information.

5.4. Theoretical Contribution: Verification Archipelagos as Decolonial Counter-Disinformation Model

The concept of verification archipelagos, emerging inductively from our analysis of journalist and community practices, represents this study’s primary theoretical contribution to counter-disinformation scholarship. Unlike existing fact-checking models that concentrate verification authority in centralized institutions, verification archipelagos distribute epistemic authority across multiple knowledge systems and community networks while maintaining coordination through horizontal communication rather than hierarchical control.

This distributed epistemology model addresses fundamental limitations of Western fact-checking approaches when applied to contexts where corporate and state power structures actively promote disinformation while undermining institutional credibility. By dispersing verification capacity across communities and knowledge systems, archipelago models achieve resilience through diversity rather than institutional strength. Individual components may face attack or suppression, but network integrity persists.

The archipelago metaphor captures several distinctive features that differentiate this model from existing counter-disinformation approaches:

First, geographic distribution across scattered communities rather than metropolitan concentration enables verification capacity in remote or marginalized locations where corporate disinformation often targets vulnerable populations lacking access to centralized fact-checking services.

Second, epistemic pluralism, recognizing multiple valid knowledge systems rather than privileging scientific expertise, creates resilience against corporate strategies that exploit scientific uncertainty or produce pseudo-scientific counterevidence. Traditional knowledge systems based on long-term observation often provide more definitive environmental assessments than contemporary science, which is vulnerable to corporate manipulation.

Third, horizontal coordination through peer communication rather than hierarchical command prevents single-point failures that turn off centralized systems. Corporate harassment targeting individual journalists or institutions cannot turn off distributed networks where verification capacity persists across multiple nodes.

Fourth, cultural embeddedness, grounding verification in local knowledge and traditions rather than universal standards, increases community trust and participation while enabling culturally appropriate communication that evades algorithmic suppression targeting explicitly political content.

Fifth, adaptive flexibility enables different communities to develop context-appropriate approaches while maintaining network connections. This allows verification methods to evolve in response to changing disinformation tactics without requiring centralized decision-making or uniform protocols.

These features enable verification archipelagos to function effectively in contexts where centralized fact-checking faces systematic suppression, institutional distrust, or resource constraints. The model’s transferability to other Global South contexts facing similar challenges suggests broader applicability beyond the Indonesian case examined here. However, transferability requires careful attention to local cultural contexts, traditional knowledge systems, and specific forms of epistemic marginalization rather than simple replication of Indonesian protocols.

5.5. Limitations and Challenges of Alternative Models

While verification archipelagos demonstrate significant advantages for community-based counter-disinformation, our research also reveals substantial limitations that constrain their effectiveness and scalability. The challenges documented in Section 4.6, digital divide barriers, gendered participation gaps, resource constraints, and institutional recognition problems, represent fundamental obstacles rather than easily resolved implementation issues.

The geographic limitation inherent in community-based approaches creates verification gaps that corporate disinformation campaigns exploit by shifting focus to areas where networks lack presence. The finding that networks concentrate in areas with active environmental conflicts while remaining absent in regions with latent environmental risks suggests that archipelago models may be reactive rather than preventive counter-disinformation strategies.

Resource constraints documented in Section 4.6, particularly the tension between professional laboratory testing costs and community budget limitations, reveal how epistemic pluralism faces material barriers in contexts where policy institutions demand specific scientific evidence. While community networks achieve high verification accuracy, their findings gain policy traction only when supplemented by expensive scientific testing that many networks cannot consistently afford. This material constraint suggests that epistemic decolonization requires the recognition of multiple knowledge systems and resource redistribution, enabling communities to produce evidence formats that existing institutions will accept.

The institutional recognition gaps facing verification archipelagos reflect broader power structures that privilege credentialed expertise over community knowledge, regardless of accuracy. This structural bias suggests that alternative verification models, however effective, face systemic obstacles to achieving policy influence comparable to institutional fact-checking, a limitation with significant implications for environmental justice outcomes. Addressing this limitation requires institutional reforms recognizing community verification as a legitimate evidence source, not merely community awareness campaigns or network capacity building.

The gendered participation gaps documented in Section 4.6, with women comprising only 38% of network participants despite comprising most of the environmental monitoring in many communities, reveal how verification archipelagos risk reproducing patriarchal structures unless gender equity becomes an explicit organizing principle. Networks that developed intentional gender equity measures achieved more balanced participation but remained inconsistent across cases. Future development of verification archipelago models must prioritize gender justice from inception rather than treating it as a secondary concern.

6. Implications for Global Counter-Disinformation Strategies

6.1. Lessons for Platform Governance and Media Literacy

The counter-disinformation strategies documented in this research offer several vital insights for addressing environmental misinformation in platform-dominated media environments. The community-based verification approaches developed by Indonesian environmental journalists demonstrate alternatives to centralized fact-checking systems that may be more resistant to corporate influence while maintaining rigorous accuracy standards.

The emphasis on traditional knowledge integration suggests that effective counter-disinformation strategies must recognize multiple knowledge systems rather than privileging Western scientific frameworks that may be vulnerable to corporate manipulation. Media literacy approaches incorporating traditional knowledge can provide more comprehensive frameworks for evaluating environmental claims while respecting diverse cultural knowledge systems.

Platform regulation approaches should address algorithmic bias that systematically privileges corporate-sponsored content while suppressing environmental journalism critical of extractive industries. The documentation of algorithmic suppression patterns provides evidence for policy interventions that could require platform transparency about algorithmic governance while protecting environmental journalism from corporate censorship campaigns.

Community-based verification networks offer models for democratic participation in counter-disinformation activities that extend beyond individual media literacy to collective knowledge production and verification. These approaches suggest possibilities for scaling community verification approaches to address corporate disinformation campaigns in other contexts while maintaining community authority over knowledge systems.

6.2. Theoretical Contributions to Decolonial Media Studies

This research contributes to emerging scholarship on decolonial media studies by demonstrating how environmental journalists in the Global South develop alternative approaches to verification and fact-checking that challenge Western-centric models while maintaining professional credibility. The concept of “verification archipelagos” provides a framework for understanding how marginalized communities can develop autonomous knowledge verification systems that operate independently of colonial institutional frameworks.

Analyzing algorithmic resistance practices contributes to growing scholarship on how marginalized communities navigate corporate platform control while maintaining communicative autonomy. The sophisticated strategies for cultural framing and platform diversification demonstrate possibilities for maintaining editorial independence despite algorithmic systems designed to serve corporate rather than democratic interests.

Integrating traditional knowledge systems with contemporary journalism practices challenges dominant frameworks in journalism studies that treat professional journalism as incompatible with community-based knowledge systems. Instead, this research demonstrates how journalists can develop innovative approaches that strengthen traditional knowledge while enhancing environmental reporting credibility and community relevance.

The documentation of community verification networks provides insights into how democratic knowledge production can operate at scale while maintaining accountability mechanisms that prevent the spread of misinformation. These findings suggest alternatives to corporate platform governance and state-controlled information systems that could inform democratic communication policy development.

7. Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study faces several limitations that suggest directions for future research. The focus on South Sulawesi limits the generalizability of findings to other Indonesian regions with different environmental challenges, political contexts, and cultural systems. Comparative research examining environmental counter-disinformation strategies in other parts of Indonesia and Southeast Asia would provide broader insights into how regional variations affect verification network development and effectiveness.

The temporal scope of this research, conducted during a relatively stable political period, leaves questions about how counter-disinformation networks adapt during periods of increased corporate pressure or environmental crisis. Longitudinal research tracking how verification networks respond to intensified disinformation campaigns would provide important insights into the resilience of community-based counter-disinformation approaches.

The technological focus on current social media platforms may miss emerging technologies that could transform environmental disinformation and counter-disinformation strategies. Future research might examine how environmental journalists adapt to artificial intelligence-generated environmental misinformation, deepfake technologies, and emerging social media platforms that could alter the ecological information and verification landscape. Recent work on AI in journalism (Sonni et al., 2024) suggests that these technological transformations will significantly affect the production and verification of environmental information.

Gender dimensions of environmental counter-disinformation received limited attention in this study, despite evidence that women environmental journalists and monitors face specific challenges and bring distinct perspectives to environmental verification activities. Future research on women’s experiences in ecological counter-disinformation would provide important insights into how gender shapes access to verification networks, community environmental knowledge, and protection from corporate harassment.

The relationship between counter-disinformation activities and policy impact remains underexplored in this research. Future studies might examine how community-based verification networks influence environmental policy development, how government officials respond to community ecological documentation, and how ecological counter-disinformation contributes to broader environmental governance transformations.

8. Conclusions

This study’s examination of environmental counter-disinformation strategies in maritime Southeast Asia reveals how journalists and communities develop sophisticated verification systems that challenge corporate misinformation campaigns and Western-centric fact-checking models. Through detailed ethnographic analysis of verification networks in South Sulawesi, combined with quantitative platform analysis and participatory research, this investigation demonstrates how verification archipelagos achieve rapid response (median 16 h), high accuracy (94%), strong community trust (73% higher than external sources), and significant policy impact (12 citations in regulatory decisions).

The concept of verification archipelagos emerging from grounded analysis of journalist and community practices represents this study’s primary theoretical contribution. Unlike centralized fact-checking models that concentrate authority in institutions vulnerable to corporate or state pressure, verification archipelagos distribute epistemic authority across multiple knowledge systems and community networks, achieving resilience through diversity rather than institutional strength. This distributed epistemology model demonstrates that effective counter-disinformation need not conform to Western institutional frameworks to maintain rigor and credibility.

Integrating traditional environmental knowledge with contemporary verification practices, documented through detailed protocols in Section 4.3, reveals how epistemic decolonization operates in practice, rather than treating traditional knowledge as supplementary or anecdotal. In verifying archipelagos’ position, indigenous observation methods are considered coequal evidence sources alongside scientific testing. This integration enhances verification accuracy and community trust while respecting cultural knowledge ownership and authority. The effectiveness metrics showing 94% verification accuracy and 73% higher community trust demonstrate empirically that epistemic pluralism strengthens rather than compromises knowledge production quality.

The algorithmic resistance strategies documented in Section 4.4 demonstrate how environmental journalists exploit platform features through cultural framing, temporal coordination, cross-platform presence, and community amplification to maintain audience reach despite systematic algorithmic suppression. These strategies achieve measurable effectiveness (156% higher organic reach for culturally framed content) while remaining grounded in local cultural knowledge rather than technical sophistication, revealing how resistance emerges from cultural embeddedness rather than technological expertise.

However, this research also documents significant challenges facing verification archipelagos, including digital divide barriers affecting 34% of community monitors, gendered participation gaps with women comprising only 38% of network members, resource constraints limiting professional testing capacity, and institutional recognition problems preventing policy influence comparable to credentialed expertise. These limitations suggest that alternative verification models, while demonstrating advantages in community contexts, face systemic obstacles to scaling impact beyond local communities or achieving influence within policy frameworks that privilege Western epistemologies.

The power dynamics revealed in this research highlight how environmental disinformation operates as a manifestation of digital colonialism, with corporate-controlled algorithms systematically marginalizing Global South environmental knowledge while amplifying misinformation serving extractive industry interests. Platform content analysis documented 187 corporate pseudo-scientific posts receiving sponsored promotion, 34 influencer partnerships promoting extractive industries, and 23 bot networks publishing 3847 coordinated tweets overwhelming authentic environmental journalism. However, the counter-disinformation strategies developed by Indonesian environmental journalists also demonstrate possibilities for epistemic resistance that challenge colonial power structures while strengthening democratic environmental governance and community ecological sovereignty.

As climate disinformation campaigns intensify globally and platform algorithms increasingly serve corporate rather than democratic interests, understanding how journalists in climate-vulnerable regions maintain credible environmental reporting while combating systematic misinformation becomes increasingly urgent. The strategies documented in this research offer hope for environmental journalism that can serve both the community needs and broader environmental advocacy while maintaining editorial credibility and journalist safety despite facing 34 documented harassment campaigns during our research period.

The verification archipelago model documented in this research offers frameworks that could be adapted across Global South contexts facing similar challenges while requiring careful attention to local cultural contexts, power dynamics, and community needs. The model’s five distinctive features, geographic distribution, epistemic pluralism, horizontal coordination, cultural embeddedness, and adaptive flexibility, provide a theoretical foundation for developing alternative counter-disinformation approaches in diverse contexts. However, successful adaptation requires genuine commitment to epistemic decolonization, sustained investment in community capacity, and institutional reforms recognizing multiple knowledge systems rather than replicating Indonesian protocols.

Future research should examine how verification archipelagos operate across different environmental and political contexts, how emerging technologies (particularly AI-generated disinformation) affect community verification capacity, how gendered dynamics shape network participation and knowledge authority, and how verification networks influence long-term environmental policy development beyond immediate regulatory decisions. Comparative research across multiple Global South regions would reveal whether patterns documented in maritime Southeast Asia represent broader counter-disinformation strategies or context-specific adaptations requiring different approaches in other settings.

South Sulawesi’s environmental journalists and community monitors demonstrate that alternatives to corporate disinformation and Western-dominated fact-checking systems are possible and already emerging from communities facing the most severe impacts of extractive industry misinformation and environmental degradation. Their innovations in community-based verification offer crucial insights for building environmental journalism capable of addressing interconnected challenges of climate disinformation and platform colonialism while maintaining community authority over environmental knowledge and democratic environmental governance.

This research contributes to scholarship on counter-disinformation, decolonial media studies, platform governance, and environmental communication while offering practical models for journalists, community organizers, and policy makers seeking to strengthen democratic ecological discourse. The verification archipelago concept provides a theoretical framework with broader applicability beyond environmental journalism to other domains where marginalized communities develop alternative knowledge production systems, challenging dominant epistemologies. As digital colonialism and the climate crisis intensify, the strategies documented here offer hope for building more just and democratic approaches to information verification that serve community empowerment rather than reproducing colonial power structures.