Imagine overhearing on a bus that the city council plans to implement new restrictions under an urban planning program called “15-minute cities”. Curious, you search the term on Google.
Authors
- Kateryna Kasianenko
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology
- Ashwin Nagappa
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, Queensland University of Technology
- Caroline Gardam
Researcher, Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology
It’s likely that at the top of the results page, an AI-generated text summarising the search results will appear. This text synthesises content from various webpages that answer specific search queries . They are increasingly appearing not only in Google, but also in other search engines, and users are now likely to stop reading the search results page beyond this AI-generated text.
But what if the AI-generated answer – the only search result users may see – confidently makes misleading or incorrect claims? Or reinforces conspiratorial ideas suggested by pro-conspiracy search terms?
Our new research , published in the journal Media International Australia, shows this is sometimes true of Google’s AI-generated overviews. It highlights that stronger guardrails are needed to tackle the spread of dangerous conspiracy theories.
Focusing on two conspiracies
We focused on two conspiracy theories: chemtrails and 15-minute cities.
“Chemtrails” is a conspiracy theory that has been around since the 1990s. Its believers mainly perceive the condensation trails left behind aircraft as large-scale weather or climate modification programs.
Researchers called out Google for giving visibility to conspiratorial beliefs around chemtrails back in 2015. In response, the company demoted problematic search results.
Conspiracy theories surrounding 15-minute cities are relatively younger. The term was originally coined to represent an efficient urban planning model. But for the conspiracist, these plans represent a nefarious elite, globalist agenda that seeks to monitor and control residents through technology.
Comparing search results
We developed search queries reflecting these conspiratorial beliefs and general ways of searching on the same topics (relying on open fora and Google Trends for query examples). We then collected data from the first page of Google search results for a week in January 2026.
We compared the AI overviews, the sources they link to, and the conventional lists of search results across the two conspiracy theories and two types of queries.
We found search queries that reflect conspiratorial beliefs fetched notably different AI summaries as compared to queries without pro-conspiracy words. This was especially true when the search query involved lesser-known narratives or incorporated words that could suggest the searcher believes in the conspiracy – for example, searching for “15 minute city segregation” as opposed to just “15-minute cities”.
The good news is that, for well-established cases, such as chemtrails, the AI overviews mention the conspiracy theory very rarely. Generally, for both topics, AI summaries for “conspiratorial” searches debunked conspiratorial beliefs.
The bad news is that such debunking is cursory. It often does not go beyond statements that conspiracy theories are “misinformation”. However, to stop these narratives from spreading, people seeking information about them need to be presented with factual and logical arguments debunking them.
Of concern, AI summaries for the less established “15-minute cities” case actively promoted conspiratorial beliefs, even while debunking the conspiracy theory in some instances. For this topic, 12.5% of AI overviews we analysed presented the false claims as one side in a legitimate debate. For example, in response to our query, “15 minute cities versus smart cities control”, the AI overview contained the following:
Overlap: A 15-minute city can be smart by using smart mobility and [Internet of Things] to manage its local resources efficiently, but a smart city doesn’t automatically become a 15-minute city. In essence, think of the 15-minute city as the “what” (livable design) and the smart city as a potential “how” (technology to enable it), but the control aspect is where critics focus their backlash, blurring the lines between convenience and surveillance.
The ranked lists of search results – a staple of Google search for years – are not foolproof either. Our simulation of “conspiratorial” searches returned links pointing to YouTube videos and Facebook posts promoting such beliefs.
The AI-generated snippets also tended to feature more commercial results. This is understandable – businesses rely on Google to connect them to customers. And if users do not read beyond AI overviews, it is beneficial for companies to be included as sources of such snippets.
However, this can sometimes promote conspiratorial beliefs. For example, one AI overview we analysed contained a source that linked to a book on sale on Amazon by a prominent conspiracy theorist.
A spokesperson for Google told The Conversation its AI overviews “operate like traditional search in that they aim to match content from the web to the words in your query”. They added:
We invest significantly in the quality of AI overviews and the vast majority provide accurate information. When issues arise – like if our features misinterpret web content or miss some context – we use those examples to improve our systems, and we take action as appropriate under our policies.
Tackling the spread of conspiracies
As a company connecting users to information in scenarios ranging from mundane to critical, Google has long denied it is a “publisher”. But as the search engine moves towards providing direct answers in AI-generated snippets or chats, it may become increasingly difficult to continue denying this role.
A court in Munich, Germany, recently found Google liable for false claims contained within its AI overviews – even though, as Google argued, users are warned about possible errors and can check the answers for themselves.
Search literacy is important and users are capable of considering the authority of sources, refining search queries, and comparing results across multiple search engines. Understanding how Google ranks its results and generates AI Overviews is a part of such literacy.
But this does not absolve the company (or any other search engine or chatbot operator) from the responsibility of establishing stronger guardrails to prevent the spread and legitimisation of conspiratorial beliefs.
The example of the more established conspiracy theory, “chemtrails”, demonstrates that Google has the capacity for such guardrails. They should be deployed across a broader range of topics, including more emergent beliefs.
Of course, what gets displayed on a search result page will never be perfect – and this is where stronger user literacy should come into play.
