This is part III of a four-part series exploring the nature of the trust apocalypse and what we can do about it:
There is no silver bullet to restore widespread trust within society. Combating the trust apocalypse demands a multifaceted approach. No single remedy will suffice; instead, we must simultaneously transform the informational landscape, reinvent our institutions for the digital age, and rebuild trust in each other. Each one is certainly necessary, but by itself, insufficient to restore widespread trust within society. All three together are both necessary and hopefully sufficient.
Work to rebuild trust in each other will look quite different from efforts to reinvent institutions. Determining what constitutes trustworthy journalism is distinct from rebuilding interpersonal relationships within a local community. Likewise, transforming the Internet from a place where humans connect in service to algorithms and machines that mine attention to sell to the highest bidder to an Internet of humans, a people-centered Internet, where the whole is obligated to orient in the direction of the self; and the self is obligated to orient in the direction of the whole.
At a macro level, the independent polls highlighted above measure progress. When the decades-long decline in trust and rise in polarization are reversed, and we see trust in one another and in institutions rise while polarization lessens, then we know that we are on the right track. Of course, these measures are lagging indicators that show trends over years, if not decades. In the short term, it will be essential to identify leading indicators tailored to each focus area. For example, measuring the level of trust among neighbors in a local community resulting from a particular initiative or innovation may differ from measuring bipartisan regard for a new journalistic endeavor.
Rebuilding Social Cohesion from the Ground Up
At the heart of our societal crisis is the fragmentation of community bonds. As Jane Jacobs points out in her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities, published in 1961:1
“The trust of a city street is formed over time from many, many little public sidewalk contacts. It grows out of people stopping by at the bar for a beer, getting advice from the grocer and giving advice to the newsstand man, comparing opinions with other customers at the bakery and nodding hello to the two boys drinking pop on the stoop, eyeing the girls while waiting to be called for dinner, admonishing the children, hearing about a job from the hardware man and borrowing a dollar from the druggist, admiring the new babies and sympathizing over the way a coat faded. Most of it is ostensibly utterly trivial but the sum is not trivial at all. The sum of such casual public contact at a local level — most of it fortuitous, most of it associated with errands, all of it metered by the person concerned and not thrust upon him by anyone — is a feeling for the public identity of people, a web of public respect and trust, and a resource in time of personal or neighborhood need.”
Innovative local initiatives provide a blueprint for rebuilding trust by demonstrating how neighbors can connect, share resources, and collaborate to address common problems. For example, Vermont’s Front Porch Forum — an online platform designed to foster moderated, localized discussions — shows how digital tools can be harnessed to rebuild the interpersonal ties that underpin a healthy community. Beyond this, cities like Detroit have witnessed a revival of community solidarity through urban farming programs, where neighbors transform vacant lots into shared gardens, strengthening food security and social cohesion. In Philadelphia, the Rebuild initiative revitalizes public spaces, including parks, libraries, and recreation centers, to serve as hubs of neighborhood activity, fostering trust and connection among residents from diverse backgrounds. Meanwhile, in Cleveland, the Neighbor Up network empowers citizens to pool resources, exchange skills, and collectively address local challenges. These models underscore the importance of grassroots engagement: by prioritizing face-to-face interactions, inclusive decision-making, and shared responsibility, we can lay the groundwork for a more engaged and cohesive society — one built on trust among community members.
Building New Institutions for a Digital Age
The institutions that once sustained our democracy now struggle to meet the demands of a hyper-connected world. To reinvigorate public trust, we must design agile and resilient institutions capable of evolving alongside technological and societal changes. Drawing inspiration from decentralized governance models, such as Taiwan’s G0v and the civic tech initiatives led by Audrey Tang, we can begin to reimagine how public institutions operate. For instance, Estonia’s pioneering e-Residency program and X-Road data exchange infrastructure demonstrate how digital governance can ensure transparency, security, and accessibility at scale. Barcelona’s Decidim platform offers another example, empowering citizens to propose, debate, and vote on local policies, thereby embedding direct democratic participation into municipal governance. Through these models, we see the potential of digital democracy to engender greater trust in public institutions by making decision-making processes more transparent, collaborative, and accountable.
At the same time, trustworthy journalism is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy, as it provides citizens with accurate information and holds those in power accountable. Newer subscription-based outlets (non-advertising-based businesses), such as The Free Press, founded by Bari Weiss in late 2022, emphasize independence, free speech, and open debate. Because it is relatively new, perceptions of its partisanship vary. Some observers criticize it for leaning away from mainstream progressive views, while others note that it features a range of contributors and topics. Still, its membership-driven approach fosters a sense of shared responsibility between journalists and readers, aligning with a broader push toward transparent and less commercially driven journalism.
Emerging nonpartisan media company State Affairs is revolutionizing journalism at the local government and statehouse levels. By focusing on issues that often receive little national attention, State Affairs seeks to empower citizens, representatives, and legislators by accurately reporting on how state-level policies are shaped and implemented. This approach holds regional governments accountable and fosters trust by bridging the gap between communities and their representatives. In essence, these efforts illustrate how dedicated local journalism can serve as both a watchdog and a catalyst for civic engagement, reinforcing trust at the grassroots level.
While none of the examples above are necessarily the solution, they at least point toward the thinking needed to reinvent the democratic and journalistic institutions society has historically relied on to make sense of the world. Solutions that call on the better angels of our nature, reduce polarization, and help find common ground; solutions that avoid the perverse incentives of the attention economy and its inherent self-aggrandizement. The goal is to create transparent, accountable, and adaptable systems where institutions prioritize the public good over self-preservation.
Transforming Our Informational Systems
Without trust, there can be no consensus-based reality — no shared baseline of fact on which an entire society can rely. Historically, we had one broadly recognized set of truths and countless opinions about them. Today, we have a thousand competing “truths,” each tethered to different beliefs or ideological filters. This splintering of reality not only sows confusion but also deepens distrust (compounding the problem), making it nearly impossible to find common ground for dialogue and cooperation.
The Internet and its attendant algorithms significantly mediate our access to information, directly impacting our ability to make sense of the world. Yet, as it exists today, the Internet (algorithms) actively disadvantage sensemaking. The perverse incentives of the attention economy, both for the platforms and individuals, engender a race to the bottom of the brainstem. Institutions we once looked to for protection from the worst exigencies of our collective behavior have themselves been captured. Politicians battle for attention on the very platforms they should be reigning in. Instead of holding power to account, journalists have likewise responded to the siren call of attention at all costs. If we are going to restore our ability to make sense of the world, we need an Internet capable of supporting trustworthy sources of information and open public discourse. An Internet that doesn’t introduce negative bias into sensemaking. As Tim Berners-Lee wrote in his open letter marking the 35th anniversary of his invention of the Web:
“Underlying its whole infrastructure was the intention to allow for collaboration, foster compassion and generate creativity — what I term the 3 C’s. It was to be a tool to empower humanity. The first decade of the web fulfilled that promise — the web was decentralised[sic] with a long-tail of content and options, it created small, more localised[sic] communities, provided individual empowerment, and fostered huge value. Yet in the past decade, instead of embodying these values, the web has instead played a part in eroding them.”
Rebuilding an Internet that serves sensemaking rather than sabotaging it is one of the institutional answers still to be built. This paper leaves its design to the builders; what it insists on is the need.
Up Next — Part IV: Catalyzing Change
Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Vintage, 1992).