The construction and negotiation of (non-)truth claims in far-right conspiratorial communities on Telegram

If post-truth presents an epistemic shift, Telegram has become one of its crucial engines of truth-production. Scholars have demonstrated that post-truth does not mean that truth no longer matters; quite the opposite, it has become much more contested (Harambam et al., 2022). Far-right conspiracy communities have long joined this battle over the truth. They are often presented as the culprits in democratic backsliding or the undermining of public discourse, while more critical scholars urge us to refrain from simplistic categorization without accounting for the looseness of many of these collectives (Harambam et al. 2022) and the possibility of conspiracy theories being true. Not all conspiracy believers are far-right, and conspiracy belief is not necessarily the cause for authoritarian views, but research shows that “antidemocratic people are more likely to endorse conspiracy belief” (Thomas et al. 2025: 1263) and points out the connections between conspiracy content and radicalization (e.g., Schulze et al., 2022). Participants in conspiracy cultures develop ways of seeing and being in the world that may become nearly completely disjoint from other parts of society. But what are ‘their’ truths? And how do ‘they’ communicate what is true or not? Particularly in online spaces such as Telegram, these questions need to be answered to be able to think about potential interventions. Consequently, this research poses the question of how far-right conspiracy communities construct and authenticate (non-)truth claims. Taking a qualitative, communicative approach, I analyze 551 Telegram posts containing (non-)truth-claims and their comments, which I identified during my fieldwork between November 2023 and April 2025. My analysis elucidates the different scripts, i.e., programs of action (Kuhn et al. 2017; Latour 2013) that define how truth is constructed within the channels, accounting for rhetoric, visuality, affectivity, and platform affordances. This micro-level, in-depth analysis not only helps us understand how truth is constructed but sheds light on the plurality of truths that co-exist within these spaces and their relationality to other actors (such as legacy media outlets, politicians, or other far-right figures). Taking such a relational approach grounded in organizational communication theory allows us to shift the focus to the everyday practices of maintaining these communities and acknowledging the multiple agencies at play. Together, these insights complicate our understanding of far-right truth politics on Telegram by highlighting interaction over mere broadcasting and content generation.