Discours conspirationnistes et défiance institutionnelle dans l'écosystème canadien en ligne

Résumé analytique

Public critique of democratic institutions can be a sign of a healthy democracy, but it can also destabilize democratic structures and social cohesion. While Canada has maintained relatively high levels of institutional trust over the past 15 years, distrust is increasing among some segments of the electorate. Conspiracy claims can be conceived as a consequence of this growing distrust, but also cause more of it, forming a vicious circle. These claims have had tangible consequences, shaping public compliance with COVID-19 public health measures and eroding confidence in the integrity of democratic elections. Today's information environment, which rewards attention and engagement, can amplify these claims and entrench them in public debate.

This brief evaluates the spread and belief of anti-institutional conspiratorial claims in the Canadian information ecosystem, defined as narratives that transform institutional skepticism into claims of covert elite coordination and harm, often detached from factual evidence. It draws on two sources of evidence: a nationally representative survey measuring Canadians' awareness and belief in conspiratorial claims, and a dataset of 14 million posts from relevant accounts in Canada on X, TikTok, Instagram, and Bluesky, used to analyze the content, origins, and spread of these claims.

Dominant conspiratorial claims challenge the legitimacy of democratic institutions, with high-engagement theories portraying media, political elites, and public authorities as acting in coordination to manipulate the public, elections, and health information. Awareness is widespread but belief remains limited: between 29% and 63% of Canadians report having heard of the conspiracy theories included in the survey, though only a small minority endorse them, with support slightly higher for claims about gender indoctrination and media-elite collusion. Influencers drive both the supply and amplification of conspiratorial claims, having shared 87% of the conspiratorial claims identified and attracted 89% of views and 87% of likes. Platform dynamics also shape exposure and belief: X is the dominant platform for engaging with conspiracy theories, accounting for 70% of likes and hosting the largest volume of posts, and frequent X users are significantly more likely to be aware of and endorse conspiratorial claims than users of other platforms or infrequent social media users. A small group of users drives interconnected conspiratorial claims: 100 online users account for 68% of conspiratorial posts, capturing 90% of views and 86% of likes, generally promoting multiple conspiratorial claims — particularly about the deep state, election fraud, and media-elite collusion — and gaining attention primarily by posting around high-profile events.

Anti-institutional conspiratorial claims can distort public debate, polarize citizens, and influence policy discussions. While some draw on genuine anxieties or partial truths, they often simplify complex issues into fear-driven narratives that normalize distrust in democratic institutions and media, shifting attention away from evidence-based decision-making. Understanding how these claims gain traction online, and who engages with them, is essential for strengthening an information ecosystem that supports public accountability, high-quality information sources, and mutual, earned trust between governments and citizens.