PARK WATCH Article March 2026 |

Jacob L’Huillier Lunt, Acting Manager, Communications, on making your voice count online and avoiding digital exhaustion

The online world has certainly become a confusing, and often volatile, space to exist in. Its influence is undeniable. Social media platforms, blogs and independent media posts have become crucial spaces where campaigns are won or lost, where public opinion is shaped, and where nature defenders amplify their message.

This digital landscape is increasingly complex, with sophisticated algorithms, organised disinformation campaigns, emerging deepfake technology and the constant risk of burnout. But it’s a place we can all have a big impact on sticking up for nature! Whether you’re an infrequent social media user or a regular scroller, here’s some tips to help you survive, thrive and increase your impact in the digital world.

Social media algorithms continue to evolve at a rapid rate. When you engage with content about national parks or nature protection, you’re not simply communicating with other users, you’re also communicating with the platform itself.

Research has shown false information spreads six times faster than verified content, and is therefore more valuable to the platform. Sensational, emotionally charged content, whether accurate or not, receives algorithmic priority over careful, factual advocacy.

To help combat this it’s important to know how different types of engagement work. Sharing content pushes it beyond your immediate network, signalling strong endorsement to the platform. Thoughtful, substantive comments demonstrate genuine engagement to both human readers and algorithmic systems. Even simple ‘likes’ contribute to visibility, though less significantly.

In 2026, algorithms prioritise ‘meaningful interaction’. Posts that generate substantive discussion from authentic accounts get amplified while generic responses or behaviour resembling bot activity get suppressed.    

When you contribute a considered comment to nature content, you’re helping train these systems to recognise nature conservation as valuable public discourse. Although ‘substantive discussion’ doesn’t always need to be public. There is considerably more value in sharing posts to group chats or direct messages.

Navigating hostile engagement

The tactics used to derail nature discussions have become more sophisticated. Traditional trolls, with their inflammatory language and attention-seeking behaviour, remain easy to identify. But newer approaches pose greater challenges.

‘Concern trolls’ adopt a sympathetic tone while systematically undermining conservation positions. Another tactic, known as ‘sea-lioning’, involves endless disingenuous questions designed to exhaust advocates into abandoning the discussion.

Perhaps most concerning is coordinated inauthentic behaviour. During debates over Victorian park legislation and bushfire management policy, waves of suspiciously similar comments have appeared across nature posts within hours. Common indicators include recently created accounts, generic usernames with number sequences, minimal posting history, and eerily similar phrasing across multiple accounts.

The AI deepfake threat

The technology for creating convincing fakes is now widely accessible, while detection technology remains inadequate. We’re reportedly ‘decades away’ from having technology that could conclusively tell a real from a fake. This creates a dangerous asymmetry: bad actors can generate convincing fakes faster than defenders can debunk them.

Even more troubling is the ‘liar’s dividend’ – as awareness of deepfakes grows, bad actors can dismiss authentic evidence by simply claiming it’s fabricated. Genuine documentation of destruction of nature can be waved away with ‘that’s obviously AI’, and the claim alone creates enough doubt to neutralise the evidence. On top of that, research has shown the more educated people become in AI deepfakes, the less likely they are to believe real content. People who take the time to educate themselves on this threat find it increasingly hard to believe anything they see online. This makes combating AI deepfakes very difficult.

Supporting trusted sources is incredibly important. Always track something you’ve seen online to a trusted source before believing it.

Strategic engagement

Not every online argument deserves your time and energy. Genuine questions from real people merit thoughtful responses. But there’s no point burning yourself out engaging with bad actors.

Here’s an important reality: research shows when people encounter false or misleading content, only 16.2 per cent actively intervene to counter it. Nearly half choose to ignore it, while a small percentage actually share it further. Those who do intervene face significant barriers – fear of social conflict, concern about damaging relationships, uncertainty about effective correction strategies, and sheer exhaustion from the perceived effort required.

Bad-faith actors, however, aren’t seeking understanding. Before engaging, consider: Is this account genuine? Will this exchange reach persuadable audiences? Do you have the energy for this conversation?

You’re never obligated to educate hostile strangers, particularly when doing so comes at personal cost.

When you encounter serious misinformation or coordinated attacks, documentation often proves more valuable than direct engagement. Screenshot the content, report it through proper channels, and move on. Liberal use of blocking functions isn’t retreating from debate, it’s protecting your capacity to continue sticking up for nature over the long term.

Misinformation vs disinformation

Understanding the difference matters for determining your response. Misinformation means incorrect information shared without malicious intent – perhaps outdated information about park boundaries or management plans. Gentle correction typically works: ‘I think this information may be outdated – here’s the current situation.’

Disinformation involves deliberately false content designed to deceive – e.g. coordinated campaigns falsely claiming protected areas harm local economies or that national parks increase bushfire risk. Directly arguing against disinformation often backfires by amplifying the false claim.

Fact-checking isn’t enough

Recent research reveals something uncomfortable: even when people know information is false, it can still influence their beliefs. In one study, participants who read negative content about a minority group showed increased prejudice – even when they were explicitly told, with a disclaimer, the content was fabricated and misleading. The disclaimer didn’t prevent the attitude change.

Why? Because people evaluate information through the lens of their existing beliefs and social identities, not primarily on factual accuracy. Someone who sees conservation as threatening their livelihood or lifestyle will be more receptive to anti-nature disinformation, regardless of fact-checking labels.

This doesn’t mean we abandon fact-checking or corrections. It means we need to do more of this:

  • Build relationships before presenting facts. People are more likely to accept corrections from someone they know and trust than from a stranger’s debunking article. The social relationship provides an authentication layer that platform warnings cannot.
  • Address underlying concerns. If someone fears that park expansion threatens rural communities, simply correcting their factual errors won’t shift their position. Acknowledge the concern, then provide evidence that conservation supports community wellbeing.
  • Focus on proactive truth-telling. Rather than chasing every false claim, consistently share compelling, accurate information that helps people develop better frameworks for evaluating what they encounter.

Sustainable advocacy

In 2026, people are overwhelmed by sheer volume and distressing content of what’s posted online and are increasingly retreating from political topics. Many people in our community report feeling this exhaustion.

The mental health impact of online advocacy is real and measurable. International research tracking young people’s engagement with social media found that frequent exposure to false news and problematic online engagement correlated with significantly higher depression and anxiety scores. The mechanisms are clear: cognitive overload from constant monitoring, exposure to emotionally charged content, disruption of sleep and offline relationships, and the psychological toll of watching misinformation spread faster than you can counter it.

Here’s how to increase your impact while combating the online overload:

  • If you’re creating content, post less frequently but more meaningfully. Use accessible language that connects nature protection to values people already hold – a love of being in nature, community wellbeing, children’s future, public health. Avoid jargon that excludes non-specialist audiences.
  • Recognise the emotional labour. That exhaustion you feel from online advocacy isn’t personal failure, it’s a rational response to an environment designed to overwhelm. Studies show that the psychological toll of countering misinformation is significant: fear of conflict, concern about relationships, uncertainty about effectiveness, and sheer cognitive fatigue from the constant vigilance required.
  • Manage your own digital consumption ruthlessly. Unfollow accounts that spike stress without adding value. Establish clear boundaries around when and how much you engage with social media. Sustainable activism cannot coexist with constant doom-scrolling. Your effectiveness depends on maintaining your own wellbeing.
  • Build support networks. Connect with other advocates who understand these unique pressures. Having peers who can confirm you’re not overreacting to organised disinformation makes the work sustainable.
  • Accept that stepping back is strategic, not surrender. Research shows that when people encounter false content, nearly half choose to ignore it rather than engage. While active intervention matters, passive avoidance isn’t moral failure, it’s sometimes necessary self-preservation.

The longer view

Effective online advocacy isn’t measured in won arguments or consumed content. It’s built through strategic engagement that amplifies accurate information, strengthens community connections, and preserves your capacity to show up consistently.

Algorithms, trolls, AI deepfakes and misinformation campaigns aren’t disappearing. But neither are committed advocates. Your consistent presence – showing up when it matters, stepping back when needed – shapes culture over time. Every thoughtful comment, every genuine share, every moment you choose not to feed the outrage machine contributes to building the public support that ultimately protects Victoria’s parks and wildlife.

As the campaign for the central west national parks demonstrated, lasting victories come from sustained effort over years, not viral moments. That model remains our strength in the digital age. The conservation movement needs people who can maintain this work for the long haul.