Libraries as Knowledge Armories: Can They Combat the Weaponisation of Social Media?

Abstract

The rapid spread of misinformation, algorithmic manipulation and artificial intelligence-generated fake content on
social media has sparked growing interest in whether libraries can serve as the first line of defense for information integrity.
Despite widespread advocacy for libraries to be repositories of knowledge, the evidence base for this claim has remained
largely unexplored. This review addresses a central question: to what extent can academic and public libraries act as effective
institutional bulwarks against the weaponisation of social media, and what structural factors determine the limits of this
capacity? To answer this question, 32 peer-reviewed and institutional sources from library science, communication studies,
security research and education are combined in five thematic areas: how and to what extent disinformation spreads;
whether media literacy programs will lead to lasting behavioural change; institutional capacity of libraries; the validation
infrastructure; and the context of political and geographical contexts. The findings show that, while libraries are trustworthy
institutions with real teaching capacity, four structural barriers limit their effectiveness: chronic under-funding and understaffing;
the persistent gap between the development of verification skills and changing online behaviour; the poor
transferability of literacy tools in authoritarian and conflict-affected contexts; and the fundamental mismatch between AIdriven
fabrication and library response capacity. The framing of libraries as the primary defenders of information war is also
a risk of diverting political attention from more consequential interventions, such as platform liability, AI-regulation of
content, and national disinformation strategies. This review contributes to a critical reassessment of the claims on library
effectiveness, a typology of four structural capacity bottlenecks and a framework for including libraries as essential but
limited actors in the wider, societal response to the weaponisation of information in democratic life.