Unchecked: The architecture of disinformation

Send us Fan Mail
CONTENT WARNING
Descriptions of incarceration, the treatment of detainees
SYNOPSIS
Human rights lawyer and immigration attorney Qasim Rashid joins Rachel and Dan to dismantle the myth of a clear, consistent "legal way" to immigrate. The conversation moves between misinformation about the immigration system itself and misinformation about immigrants as people, ultimately examining the bipartisan failure to counter demonizing narratives. Rachel and Dan close with the lenses of Law-Abiding Citizen and Zero-Sum Framing.
INTERVIEW WITH QASIM RASHID
Qasim Rashid — human rights lawyer, author, and former U.S. congressional candidate
Dying of Whiteness by Jonathan Metzl — referenced on rural white communities opposing Medicaid expansion
The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander — referenced on sophisticated modern expressions of racism
Stamped from the Beginning by Ibram X. Kendi — referenced on racism and education
Cato Institute research on immigration and wages — cited on immigrants' effect on native-born wages
ProPublica report on wrongly detained U.S. citizens — cited on citizens arrested on suspicion of being immigrants
LENSES
Lens 1: Law-Abiding Citizen Systems often assume users can simply intuit and follow their rules, without asking whether those rules are clearly communicated in the first place. This lens asks whether a system's apparent simplicity is real or assumed — and whether confusion or noncompliance is a design failure being  blamed on the individual.
How does the system communicate its rules, and can a user reasonably be expected to understand them without interpretation?
How easy does the system make it to be a "law-abiding citizen" within it?
If the system isn't communicating its rules well, is that a byproduct of messiness — or intentional?
Lens 2: Zero-Sum Framing Many systems, and the narratives built around them, implicitly frame resources, opportunity, or belonging as finite — where one group's gain necessarily means another's loss. This lens looks for where that zero-sum framing is being applied, whether it reflects reality, and who benefits from convincing people to see the world that way.
Where does the system (or the discourse around it) frame things in terms of scarce, competing resources?
Is the zero-sum trade-off actually true, or is it a rhetorical or negotiating tactic?
Who benefits from people believing a situation is zero-sum when it may not be?

Episode edited by Jared Landis https://www.landispodcastediting.com/
_____________________________________________________
Personnel
Dan Brown, Host
Rachel Price, Host
Music
Turtle Up Fool, by Elliot
_____________________________________________________
Unchecked is a production of Curious Squid
Curious Squid is a digital design consulting firm specializing in information architecture, user experience, and product design

Send us Fan Mail
SYNOPSIS
Dan and Rachel kick off Season 2 of Unchecked by looking back at what season one taught them and what's ahead. We reflect on the toll of researching disinformation. They also preview season two's research directions, including Rachel's interest in the everyday myths people unconsciously rely on and Dan's theory that there's a "big lie" at the center of every domain, plus topics they're eager to dig into next.
Edited by Jared Landis <https://www.landispodcastediting.com/>
_____________________________________________________
Personnel
Dan Brown, Host
Rachel Price, Host
Music
Turtle Up Fool, by Elliot
_____________________________________________________
Unchecked is a production of Curious Squid
Curious Squid is a digital design consulting firm specializing in information architecture, user experience, and product design

Send us Fan Mail
Synopsis
Dr. Elise Gould, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, joins Rachel and Dan to pull back the curtain on how economic data is collected, revised, and communicated — and how that process is vulnerable to political manipulation. We talk about the federal statistical agencies that produce employment and wage data, the role of transparency and revision in maintaining trust, and the pressure those institutions are under today. Rachel and Dan close with two lenses: Human vs. System Integrity and Maybe.
Interview
Dr. Elise Gould — senior economist, Economic Policy Institute
Economic Policy Institute — nonpartisan think tank focused on employment, wages, and inequality
EPI Microdata — EPI's publicly accessible economic microdata site
State of Working America Data Library — EPI's public database of wages, employment, and inequality data
EPI Data Accountability Dashboard — EPI's tool for tracking parallel measures and monitoring changes to federal data
Bureau of Labor Statistics — federal agency that produces jobs and unemployment data
Philosophy Minis — Jonny Thomson's Instagram account featuring short philosophical vignettes (referenced by Dan in the lenses segment)
Lenses
Lens 1: Human vs. System Integrity
Information systems rely on some combination of built-in mechanisms and individual actors — whistleblowers, researchers, editors, external stakeholders — to maintain the integrity of their data. This lens asks where that responsibility actually lives.
What mechanisms are built into the system for detecting anomalies or integrity issues?
How much does the system rely on humans to address failures of integrity or reliability?
When there are gaps, inconsistencies, or suspicious patterns in the data, whose job is it to surface them?
What would it take for an integrity failure to go unnoticed — and how much of that risk has the system actually designed against?
Lens 2: Maybe
Drawn from the parable of the lost horse, this lens challenges the impulse to frame information as inherently good or bad news. Data systems — like dashboards and reports — routinely signal conclusions for users, even with incomplete context.
When presenting data as either good or bad, does the system also present the sufficient context to explain why?
How does the system signal urgency or alarm — and how are users empowered to specify the rules of urgency?
What tools does the system offer users to reach their own conclusions without pushing them to a predetermined frame?

Edited by Jared Landis (https://www.landispodcastediting.com/)
_____________________________________________________
Personnel
Dan Brown, Host
Rachel Price, Host
Music
Turtle Up Fool, by Elliot
_____________________________________________________
Unchecked is a production of Curious Squid
Curious Squid is a digital design consulting firm specializing in information architecture, user experience, and product design

Send us Fan Mail
CONTENT WARNING
This episode of Unchecked deals with the sensitive topic of gun violence.
SYNOPSIS
JJ Janflone, who works on culture change and narrative strategy at Brady: United Against Gun Violence, joins Rachel and Dan to unpack the Big Lie at the center of gun violence disinformation. JJ explains how that single falsehood generates cascading misbeliefs — about storage, risk, and identity — and describes Brady's efforts to shift gun culture. Rachel identifies the lens Accidents Happen and Dan suggests the lens Wild Imagination.
INTERVIEW
Brady: United Against Gun Violence — gun violence prevention organization where JJ works on culture change
This is Our Lane – Brady initiative amplifying healthcare professionals' voices on gun violence
Show Gun Safety – Brady program to depict gun safety in entertainment
The Dickey Amendment — 1996 legislation that banned CDC funding for gun violence research for over two decades (rescinded 2019)
LENSES
Wild Imagination
When a core premise goes unchallenged — like the idea that guns make you safer — information systems without guardrails allow users to spin that premise into increasingly untethered conclusions. The result is a cascade of misinformation that distorts risk perception and makes it nearly impossible to reason toward accurate, proportionate responses.
Does the system provide any framing or guardrails that help users interpret broad claims responsibly?
How does the system help users accurately assess where risk actually lies, rather than where they imagine it to be?
When users construct false or exaggerated threat scenarios, how does the system correct or contextualize them?
Accidents Happen
Once an action is taken in an information system — sharing a post, liking content, amplifying a story — it sends signals that are difficult or impossible to fully reverse. Even well-intentioned interactions can feed an algorithm in ways the user didn't intend, with consequences that outlast the original act.
Does the system provide a meaningful undo mechanism, and does undoing an action actually reverse its downstream effects?
How does the system handle users who want to signal disagreement with content without inadvertently amplifying it?
When users change their minds about information they've already shared or engaged with, how does the system support them in communicating that change?
(Show notes drafted by generative AI and edited by a human.)
_____________________________________________________
Personnel
Dan Brown, Host
Rachel Price, Host
Music
Turtle Up Fool, by Elliot
_____________________________________________________
Unchecked is a production of Curious Squid
Curious Squid is a digital design consulting firm specializing in information architecture, user experience, and product design

Send us Fan Mail
Synopsis
Karen McGrane joins Rachel and Dan to explain Reddit from the perspective of a moderator. Reddit is the largest message board on the internet, with thousands of “sub-Reddits” – individual communities based on a topic. Karen moderates the community dedicated to UX Design, which gets hundreds of new posts every week. Rachel and Dan then explore two Lenses: Swarm and Curation Escape.
Stories
"About this Account" on X/Twitter
Renee Diresta’s Substack
Big Tobacco
Tobacco industry playbook (Wikipedia)
Disinformation playbook (Union of Concerned Scientists)

Interview with Karen McGrane
Karen McGrane
/r/UXDesign subreddit

Lenses
Curation Escape
So much of our experience online is curated by algorithms. A set of rules – not chosen by you – governs what bubbles up into your feed. This set of rules is at the heart of most modern information systems, and can be responsible for perpetuating misinformation. They pose a disinformation risk by people who manipulate the algorithm.
How does the system allow users to escape the curation?
What role does algorithmic curation play in the system’s experience?
How does the system allow users to tailor the curation algorithm?

Swarm
Participants in online spaces can exhibit swarming behavior, gathering and moving as if one. Swarming groups end up performing a variety of functions – both desirable and undesirable – in an online information space. They can enforce social norms, or alienate other participants. Likewise, they can squash misinformation, or cause it to perpetuate.
How does the system react to swarm behavior? 
How does the system benefit from swarm behavior?
How might swarming cause harm?

Come see us at Information Architecture Conference (IAC26)
Register for IAC
Use discount code unchecked for $50 off base admission
_____________________________________________________
Personnel
Dan Brown, Host
Rachel Price, Host
Music
Turtle Up Fool, by Elliot
_____________________________________________________
Unchecked is a production of Curious Squid
Curious Squid is a digital design consulting firm specializing in information architecture, user experience, and product design