In the digital age, information spreads at the speed of a click, but in the rolling hills of Somerset, local officials are raising a concerned voice about the veracity of what’s being shared. Somerset Council is urging its residents to become more discerning consumers of online content, particularly when it comes to serious claims about public money, council meetings, and local decision-making. The council has observed a troubling uptick in online material—ranging from subtly edited images to entirely fabricated posts—that often misrepresents council actions or strips them of the crucial context needed for proper understanding. This isn’t just about harmless gossip; the council warns that unsupported or misleading claims, especially when they go viral, can have a tangible and damaging impact on the community. They create confusion, erode public trust, and make it increasingly difficult for citizens to engage meaningfully with the accurate information that underpins local democracy.
The concern is not abstract. A recent review of online claims circulating among Somerset readers, conducted by local news outlet Nub News, revealed a mixed bag of content. While some posts raised legitimate questions about genuine public-interest issues, a significant number were simply not supported by council records, published financial accounts, official websites, or any other verifiable public information. Many of the examples scrutinized centered on Glastonbury, but the underlying issues are county-wide, touching on the operations of Somerset Council, town and parish councils, and the very way residents across the region interact with local government. The sophistication of these misleading posts is a key part of the problem. They often come dressed in the trappings of legitimacy, featuring specific dates, names, financial figures, legal-sounding phrases, council-style wording, and references to official-looking documents. This veneer of credibility makes them dangerously easy to accept and share, blurring the line between fact and fiction for the average social media user.
Nub News has previously taken on the role of fact-checker for several of these local claims, investigating allegations about council meetings, public participation, Town Deal funding, council assets, reserves, and even purported wrongdoing. The findings were consistent: several of the most widely shared claims were not corroborated by any official source. This pattern has prompted Somerset Council to speak out, even as it acknowledges the difficulty of tracking the scale of the problem. The council does not maintain formal records that would allow it to quantify trends in misinformation or AI-generated content, but it recognizes that artificial intelligence is a double-edged sword. While AI can be a powerful and positive tool when used responsibly, it also dramatically lowers the barrier for creating and disseminating content that lacks proper context or verification. The council is clear that it welcomes public scrutiny as a vital part of local democracy, but it emphasizes that the crucial distinction lies in whether information is grounded in verifiable evidence. Residents with questions are encouraged to bypass the rumor mill and contact the council directly or consult the wealth of information—including decisions, reports, and financial data—available on its official website.
To illustrate just how easily this misinformation can be manufactured, Nub News conducted a simple experiment. They asked Google’s Gemini AI tool to generate a Facebook post about a council scandal. In a matter of seconds, the tool produced a startlingly realistic post complete with an invented local council, fabricated figures, dates, document references, meeting details, quotes, and allegations. The test served as a stark demonstration of how quickly AI can mimic the structure and tone of a local political scandal while producing material with absolutely no factual basis. This reality is acknowledged by the tech companies themselves; Google’s terms for its generative AI services warn that the tools can provide inaccurate content, and OpenAI’s terms similarly caution that output may not always be accurate and should not be relied upon as a sole source of truth. The potential for harm is not just theoretical. Media law consultant David Banks points out that unfounded claims about council finances or corruption carry significant legal risks, not only for the original poster but for everyone who shares the content. While a council itself cannot be libeled, making unfounded allegations that imply corruption can easily defame individual council officers or elected members, even if they are not named. Repeating or sharing such libelous material creates a liability, and using AI to generate it does not absolve the user of responsibility; the decision to publish it rests with the individual.
The human cost of this digital deluge is being felt most acutely at the local level. Glastonbury Town Council, in particular, has been a frequent target of misleading online claims about its meetings, finances, and projects. Town Clerk Conor Ogilvie-Davidson, speaking on behalf of the council, described how the sheer volume of misleading posts has eroded trust in local government at all levels. The council, with its limited resources, struggles to respond to every piece of misinformation, and when it does, it is often accused of “spin” or of adding to the confusion. Factual responses he has posted have sometimes been ignored or even ridiculed. This constant battle is not just an inconvenience; it consumes valuable officer time and can be deeply demoralizing for staff and councillors who are working diligently for their community. The persistent, unsupported allegations of fraud, corruption, or hidden money can cause lasting damage to the town’s reputation and make it harder for the council to focus on addressing genuine public-interest questions. This local experience reflects a broader national trend, as the Local Government Association (LGA) has identified AI-generated synthetic media as a growing concern. A 2025 LGA survey found that a significant portion of councils view deepfake-driven disinformation as a real and present risk to their operations and to the integrity of democratic engagement.
In the face of this complex and evolving challenge, the message from Somerset Council is one of proactive caution and personal responsibility. They are asking residents to adopt a simple but powerful habit: pause before sharing. Before hitting that “share” button on a post that makes serious allegations, they urge people to check the source, consider whether the claim is actually evidenced, and look for confirmation from trusted or official channels. The goal is not to stifle legitimate scrutiny or debate, but to foster a more informed and resilient community where public discourse is based on facts rather than fiction. The council’s commitment is clear: they will continue to challenge inaccurate information where they see it and ensure their own communications are transparent, accessible, and evidence-based. In an era where anyone can be a publisher, the council’s plea is a reminder that with that power comes a responsibility to verify, to question, and to protect the integrity of the information ecosystem that underpins local democracy. The fight against misinformation is not just a battle for the council; it is a shared responsibility for every resident who values trust, transparency, and the truth.