Are direct democracies more vulnerable to disinformation?
Deliberately spread misinformation surfaced during many elections in 2024 and is having an impact on social trust.
But the wave of disinformation is expected to particularly affect direct democracies – such as Switzerland or many US states – according to Touradj Ebrahimi, professor at Federal Technology Institute in Lausanne (EPFL).
Do you think that disinformation is particularly dangerous for societies where citizens directly vote on many political issues?
More
US disinformation surge rings alarm bells for Swiss direct democracy
The capitol and the bank never come to an agreement when it comes to the treasury department. It's time for wall street to reach out to members of congress.
El capitolio y el banco nunca llegan a un acuerdo cuando de el departamento de el tesoro se trata. Ya es hora de que wall street haga un acercamiento a miembros de el congresso
Direct democracy limits abuse of power by politicians, and this outweighs costs. In the 21. century, far bigger danger to the prosperity and survival of countries are closed political parties disconnected from the general society.
.
I point that the question is one sided as it omits politicians, like other commenters noticed. It can also can be easily mis-constructed as a proposal to hollow democracy, because supposedly citizens are too stupid to find correct information, and politicians should bypass them, of course benevolently.
.
A recent rejected referendum is a perfect example that politicians cannot be assumed to be better informed about the society than the society itself. One can worry - whether the Young Green politicians, young people from big cities, really understand what makes farming and industry of Switzerland work?
Thank you for your comment. Which referendum are you referring to? The question of who is informed and who is not, as well as who understands what Switzerland is all about, is what makes the question so difficult. The majority of politicians in Switzerland do not live in big cities and are not green. So, if you see the danger of politicians ignoring the population, they would hardly be politicians with a green agenda because they don't have a majority.
Vielen Dank für Ihren Kommentar. Welches Referendum meinen Sie denn? Die Frage, wer informiert ist und wer nicht, sowie wer versteht, was die Schweiz ausmacht, macht die Frage ja so schwierig. Die Mehrheit der Politikerinnen und Politiker in der Schweiz lebt jedenfalls nicht in Grosstädten und ist auch nicht grün. Also, wenn Sie die Gefahr sehen, dass Politikerinnen und Politiker die Bevölkerung übergehen, wären das wohl kaum Politikerinnen und Politiker mit einer grünen Agenda, weil diese keine Mehrheit haben.
But of course, disinformation is a problem for all of us, and I think that is a big part of Colombia's problem, because the news and media are managed by right-wing people, people who have their own interests and who care less about letting the people know what they are doing.
Pero por supuesto la desinformación nos jode a todos, creo que en gran parte es el problema de Colombia, pues los noticieros y medios de comunicación son administrados por personas de derecha, personas q tienen sus propios intereses y q lo q menos les importa es q el pueblo sepa lo q hacen.
Social networks have liberated speech and given us access to unformatted information.
Despite the dangers, particularly of algorithms, we are living in a time of greater freedom.
Free will and personal objectivity make it possible to sort things out.
As a result, ideologies are being called into question that were hitherto conveyed by media in the hands either of governments or of vested interests monopolising information and, until recently, communication.
If we take the Woke phenomenon as an example, it has been imposed through propaganda in various forms (advertising, films, shows, TV series, etc.).
Imposed does not mean accepted.
The vast majority of people do not support this seizure of power by minorities whom they respect but do not consider to be a model.
This goes against the natural laws of humanity.
The informal takeover of free will by the people underlines the need for democracies to adapt.
This takeover by individuals is rejected and denied by journalists, who believe that they alone are capable of thinking and are straying from their mission, which is to report facts and shed light on reasoning.
Journalists have become censors and inquisitors, and their words are inaudible and not credible because they are too closely aligned with interests that do not appear to be those of the people.
For this reason, the Swiss political system, imperfect though it may be, is the best equipped today to adapt to the democratic changes that are essential.
The citizens' referendum, as it is set up in Switzerland, makes it possible to reconcile democracy and the expression of the people fairly.
France and the EU would do well to draw inspiration from this, because the people of the West will not wait and will put their trust in those who are offering them the common-sense changes they are hoping for, which are now coming from Argentina and the USA.
Les réseaux sociaux ont libérés la parole et permettent d'accéder à une information non formatée.
Malgré les dangers et particulièrement des algorithmes nous vivons une plus grande période de liberté .
Le libre arbitre et l'objectivité personnelle permette de faire le tri.
Cela a pour conséquence de remettre en question des idéologies qui étaient jusqu'ici véhiculer par des médias aux mains soit de gouvernements soit d'interet particulier monopolisant l'information et jusqu'à récemment la communication.
Si nous prenons en exemple le phénomène woke celui ci s'est imposé via une propagande aux diverses formes ( publicité, films,spectacles, séries tv,..)
Imposé ne veut pas dire accepté.
La vaste majorite des peuples ne cautionne pas cette prise de pouvoir des minorités qui par ailleurs ils respectent mais ne considèrent pas comme modèle.
Celui ci allant à l'encontre des lois naturelles de l'humanité.
La reprise en main informelle du libre arbitre par les peuples souligne la nécessité de l'adaptation des démocraties.
Cette reprise en main par les individus est rejetés et niés par les journalistes qui pensent qu'eux seuls sont capables de penser et s'écartent de leur mission qui est de rapporter des faits et d'éclairer un raisonnement.
Journalistes devenus censeurs et inquisiteurs leur parole est inaudible et non crédible car trop affidés à des intérêts qui n'apparaissent pas comme celui des peuples.
Pour cela le système politique Suisse même imparfait est aujourd'hui le mieux armé pour s'adapter aux changements democratique indispensables
Le référendum citoyen tel qu'il est paramètré en Suisse permet de concilier démocratie et expression du peuple équitablement.
La France et l'UE ferait bien de s'en inspirer car les peuples occidentaux n'attendront pas et feront confiance à ceux qui leur offre les changements de bon sens espérés et qui viennent aujourd'hui d'Argentine ou des USA.
Thank you for your contribution. The instruments of direct democracy in Switzerland are indeed seen as a means of social equalisation. However, this is always in conjunction with parliament: more often than a referendum actually being held, parliamentarians' actions are characterised by the possibility of a referendum.
However, I have to disagree with you on one point: you write about "the natural laws of mankind". There are no such laws. Humans have a first nature, of course, but this is relatively far removed from our lives today, for example with regard to the fact that we live in cities, for which we have not yet adapted biologically. However, humans also have a second and third nature, which are culturally characterised - and are therefore not subject to any known or unknown "natural laws".
Vielen Dank für Ihren Beitrag. Tatsächlich gelten die Instrumente der direkten Demokratie in der Schweiz als Mittel zum gesellschaftlichen Ausgleich. Dies aber immer auch im Zusammenspiel mit dem Parlament: Häufiger, als dass ein Referendum tatsächlich ergriffen wird, sind die Parlamentarierinnen und Parlamentarier in ihrem Handeln von der Möglichkeit eines Referendums geprägt.
In einem Punkt muss ich Ihnen aber widersprechen: Sie schreiben von "den natürlichen Gesetzen der Menschheit". Solche gibt es nicht. Die Menschen haben eine erste Natur, klar, aber diese ist relativ weit von unserem heutigen Leben entfernt, etwa im Hinblick darauf, dass wir in Städten wohnen, wofür wir uns biologisch noch nicht angepasst haben. Die Menschen haben aber auch eine zweite und dritte Natur, die kulturell geprägt sind - und entsprechend keinen bekannten oder unbekannten "natürlichen Gesetzen" unterliegen.
I am a member of the Asamblea Ciudadana para el Clima, Secretary General, National Environment Award. In Spain, as in all countries, whether they are democratic or not, disinformation from parliaments and political parties is also widespread through the media, which do not inform citizens what is opinion or what is true information as they should publish it, thus manipulating public opinion. It is the same political parties that, according to their own interests, are supported in bad faith by the democracy that protects the rights of expression.
Thus, it is necessary that the public receives, as when we receive an official notification, when the information is of general interest, truthful and based on science.
Soy miembro de la Asamblea Ciudadana para el Clima, Secretario general , Premio Nacional de Medioambiente. En España como en todos los países sean democrática , o no, también la desinformación desde los parlamentos los partidos se amplia a través de los medios de información que no informan a los ciudadanos que es opinión o que es información verdadera como deben públicar, así manipulan la opinión pública. Son los mismos partidos políticos que según sus intereses, se apoyan con mala fé por la democracia que protegen los derechos expresión.
Así se hace necesario que la opinión pública reciba , como cuando recibimos una notificación oficial, cuando las informaciones sean de interés general, veraces y apoyadas en la ciencia.
Disinformation or fake news spreads against democracy and only favours a select group of the elite who handle privileged information, close to the circles of government and power, for their own benefit. It is important to take into account why Elon Musk took control of Twitter (now called X) and the modification that was established in the social networks controlled by meta, where information is not checked, and there are selective blocks to information contrary to the "dominant ideology of these social networks".
A case to take into account is the president who took office in Argentina by means of a "balotage" (54% MILEI vs. 44%UP), because no force got more than 40% and 10% of difference with the second. In the general elections the officialism obtained 37%, the LLA of MILEI 29.9% (almost two points less than in the PASO which are the compulsory internal elections to validate the candidates) and in third place the PRO WITH 24.5%). thanks to the fake news, the media spreading those lies and the bad management of the UP government GIVES THE TRIUMPH OF MILEI. Once Milei won the ballot he was isolated for 4 months in an important hotel in CABA, owned by one of his main shareholders, where the law firms of the main companies drafted the law bases and its unconstitutional decrees that he is issuing evading the executive branch and buying wills in parliament (Senator Kuider was arrested at the border of the Republic of Paraguay, entering with more than 200.000 dollars illegally and from the debate of the law bases until its approval tried to relaizar real estate operations in that country for more than 600,000 dollars, coincidence with the management and his vote that helped to the approval of that law.
La desinformacion o noticias falsas difundidas atenta contra la democracia y solo favorece a un grupo selecto de la elite que maneja informacion privilegiada , cerca de los circulos de gobierno y poder, para su beneficio propio. Es importante tener en cuenta porque Elon Musk toma el control de Twiter (hoy llamado X) y la modificacion que se establecio en las redes sociales controladas por meta , donde no se chequea la informacion, y hay bloqueos selectivos a información contraria a la " ideologia dominante de estas redes sociales".
Un caso a tomar en cuenta es el presidente que asumio en Argentina por medio de un balotage ( 54% MILEI CONTRA 44%UP ), por no conseguir ninguna fuerza mas del 40% y 10% de diferencia con el segundo. En las elecciones generales el oficialismo obtuvo el 37%, la LLA de milei 29.9% ( casi dos puntos menos que en las PASO que son las internas obligatorias para validar los candidatos) y en tercer lugar el PRO CON EL 24.5%). gracias a las fake news , los medios difundiendo esas mentiras y la mala gestion del gobierno de UP LE DA EL TRIUNFO DE MILEI. Una vez que Milei gano el balotage estuvo 4 meses aislado en un importante hotel de la CABA , propiedad de uno de sus principales apotantes, donde los estudios de abogados de las principales empresas redactaron la ley bases y sus decretos anticonstitucionales q va emitiendo eludiendo el poder ejecutivo y comprando voluntades en el parlamento ( el senador kuider fue detenido en la forntera de la rep de Paraguay , ingresando con mas de 200.000 dolares ilegalmente y a partir del debate de la ley bases hasta su aprobacion intento relaizar operaciones inmobiliarias en ese pais por mas de 600000 dolares, coincidencia con la gestion y su voto que ayudo a la aprobacion de esa Ley.
I doubt that it is still possible to reach people who have lost confidence in the future of liberal democracy after decades of neoliberal capitalism with all its distortions, and criminal politicians like Putin, Trump and co. know this.
Ich habe Zweifel, dass man die Menschen, die das Vertrauen in eine Zukunft der liberalen Demokratie nach Jahrzehnten des neoliberalen Kapitalismus mit all seinen Verwerfungen verloren haben, noch erreichen kann und das wissen kriminelle Politiker wie Putin, Trump und Co.
I really believe that disinformation is a key factor that can superinfluence a democracy, and even more so in direct democracies such as Switzerland.
It is a very latent danger.
Considero realmente que la desinformacion , es un factor clave que puede superinfluir en una democracia, y mucho mas en democracias directas como la suiza.
Es un peligro muy latente.
Thank you for your comment. How did you come to this conclusion?
Danke für Ihren Kommentar. Wie kommen Sie denn zu dieser Überzeugung?
The US ranks 29th on the Democracy index abdcis considered a 'flawed democracy". Switzerland ranks 8th and is considered a "full democracy". You are spreading disinformation by putting the 2 countries in the sane category. 😅
How do you put the US into a conversation on direct democracy? In the US your choice is one of 2 corrupt political parties which dictate policy to the populace. The US would be a vastly different place if the citizens were allowed to vote on issues such as abortion, gin control, funding continous wars/bombings/invasions versus Healthcare and/or education. Switzerland at least pretends to have a direct democracy whereas in the US politicians and their lobbyist masters clearly make all decisions.
Have you not regarded US news sources? They are the Pinnacle of disinformation based on which political party they wish to promote. And pretending that CNN isn't just as bad as Fox is disingenuous at best.
How do US politicians win elections? By whoever tells the most believable lies and gets the biggest "donations". I.E. The democrats spent over $3 billion on the 2020 presendential campaign.
In the Swiss direct democracy we at least get informative booklets with the voting package. While certainly not fully detailed, it does give the voter information...this does not exist in the US.
So...are we to make the government the main source of disinformation? Only government approved groups can push their agenda? The church will become truth while science becomes disinformation? Shall we hide the little truths we dislike under the title of "disinformation"?
And we see this with lausanne politicians pushing through things such as disarming police while the city has become a garbage dump with hard drug dealers approaching everyone (to include kids) at flon and in front on the palais de justice itself. Lausanne schools get poor scores, the chuv is under budget restraints, but we sure can put up 25 story skyscrapers and build tram lines while population and cost of living continously climb. When dies the withholding of information become disinformation? And shouldn't our government be held accountable for such versus say the few conspiracy theorist anti-vaccers?
And how much information is needed before it becomes disinformation? If I don't feel we need multi $billion US fighter jets versus investing in our hospitals and schools, am I guilty of disinformation because I am not an expert on Swiss military defense?
So in a nutshell...those wishing to stop disinformation will only end up giving the power of disinformation to a select few versus retaining the freedom of being able to see different perspectives and make a choice. Even "experts" are biased along political, religious, societal, monetary lines. The information to call out these biases should not be hidden under the guise of disinformation
Thank you, this comment was only activated later. I can now better understand your line of argument.
You write that the Swiss voting booklet provides little information. But is it enough information? For many people, it is already a challenge to weigh up this information and make a decision.
You are angry about a parliamentary vote in Lausanne, but this vote is already part of the democratic debate and the decision can - under certain circumstances - also be countered with a referendum. Accordingly, your anger is already part of a democratic consideration and debate.
Disinformation is defined by the malicious intent to deceive. Accordingly, statements because you "are not a military expert" are not disinformation. Disinformation exists and has always existed. At the moment, some are worried that it is increasing and having more impact. Several questions are pending in Parliament, from the FDP, calling for a way of dealing with it and a strategy. However, it remains to be seen how disinformation will be countered.
Vielen Dank, dieser Kommentar wurde erst später freigeschaltet. Ich kann Ihre Argumentationslinie entsprechend besser nachvollziehen.
Sie schreiben, das Schweizer Abstimmungsbüchlein vermittelt wenige Informationen. Aber sind es ausreichende Informationen? Für viele ist es ja bereits eine Herausforderung, diese abzuwägen und eine Entscheidung zu treffen.
Sie ärgern sich über eine Parlamentsabstimmung in Lausanne, doch diese Abstimmung ist ja bereits Teil der demokratischen Auseinandersetzung und dem Entscheid kann - unter Umständen - auch mit einem Referendum begegnet werden. Entsprechend ist auch Ihr Ärger bereits Teil einer demokratischen Abwägung und Debatte.
Desinformation ist definiert durch die böswillige Absicht zu täuschen. Entsprechend sind Aussagen, weil sie "kein Militärexperte sind", nicht Desinformation. Es gibt Desinformation und gab sie schon immer. Momentan sind manche beunruhigt, dass sie zunimmt und mehr Wirkung erzielt. Im Parlament sind mehrere Anfragen hängig, aus der FDP, die einen Umgang und eine Strategie damit fordern. Wie man Desinformation begegnet, ist aber offen.
How do you put the US into a conversation on direct democracy? In the US your choice is one of 2 corrupt political parties which dictate policy to the populace. The US would be a vastly different place if the citizens were allowed to vote on issues such as abortion, gin control, funding continous wars/bombings/invasions versus Healthcare and/or education. Switzerland at least pretends to have a direct democracy whereas in the US politicians and their lobbyist masters clearly make all decisions.
What a hot load of garbage. The real problem is corruption within government. We have seen that politicians in numerous countries are the cause of lies and disinformation. US politicians lie all the time on issues and the US government tosses $billions yearly into things such as anti-china propaganda. Our ever increasingly corrupted Swiss politicians would happily do the same. The power should rest squarely with the populace and nit a few chosen one politicians that will happily line their pockets with taxpayer funds while our schools and hospitals fall into a downward spiral
Thank you for your contribution. Are you speaking from the perspective of a citizen in California?
The discussion here is about states with developed direct-democratic instruments, such as Switzerland.
Vielen Dank für Ihren Beitrag. Sprechen Sie denn aus der Perspektive eines Bürgers in Kalifornien?
Die Auseinandersetzung hier befasst sich mit Staaten mit ausgebauten direkt-demokratischen Instrumenten, wie eben die Schweiz.
No, there is no danger or threat anywhere. Who decides what is disinformation and what is not? Mostly state functionaries from a particular political camp. As a rule, all citizens of democratic states can judge for themselves what is true and what is a lie. We don't need a state censorship authority for this. Freedom of opinion and freedom of the press must never be restricted by the state. That only happens in autocracies and dictatorships.
Nein, da besteht nirgends eine Gefahr oder eine Bedrohung. Wer entscheidet, was Desinformation ist und was nicht? Zumeist staatliche Funktionäre aus einem bestimmten politischen Lager. Alle Bürger von demokratischen Staaten können in der Regel selbst beurteilen, was wahr und was gelogen ist. Wir brauchen hiefür keine staatliche Zensurbehörde. Die Meinungs- und Pressefreiheit darf keinesfalls von Staates wegen eingeschränkt werden. Das gibt es nur in Autokratien und Diktaturen.
Thank you for your contribution. No, the question of what disinformation is is primarily dealt with by science, for example: https://www.news.uzh.ch/de/articles/news/2024/ki-desinformation.html
Vielen Dank für Ihren Beitrag. Nein, mit der Frage, was Desinformation ist, befasst sich bspw. vor allem die Wissenschaft: https://www.news.uzh.ch/de/articles/news/2024/ki-desinformation.html
The question leads the reader to believe that disinformation comes from anti-system subjects. And that it is therefore dangerous.
Instead, disinformation comes mainly from subjects in power and is aimed at maintaining power.
Therefore, every measure to control so-called "disinformation" is primarily a measure of censorship.
In this sense, it is the measures against "disinformation" that are dangerous for direct democracy, because they do not allow for true change.
The question is ill-posed. Tautological at the outset because it postulates the nature of 'disinformation' a priori. Of course everyone agrees if we pose the question in this way. But the serious question to ask is another: what or what characteristics are typical of disinformation and how can we recognise it? The crucial problem is that the media have passed off and censored information by calling it 'disinformation' a priori.
La questione è mal posta. Tautologica in partenza perché postula la natura di "disinformazione" a priori. Chiaro che tutti sono d'accordo se poniamo la questione così. Ma la domanda seria da porsi è un'altra: che cosa o quali caratteristiche sono tipiche della disinformazione e in che modo possiamo riconoscerla? Il problema cruciale è che i media hanno spacciato e censurato informazioni chiamandole a priori "disinformazione".
Thank you for your feedback. However, I disagree: the question opens up a broad field for discussion, because on the one hand you can take the perspective that direct democracies are particularly dependent on an informed society; on the other hand, you can take the perspective that citizens in direct democracies are more accustomed to reading (voting) information critically.
Vielen Dank für Ihr Feedback. Ich bin allerdings anderer Meinung: Die Frage öffnet ein breites Feld für Diskussionen, denn einerseits kann man die Perspektive einnehmen, dass direkte Demokratien besonders auf eine informierte Gesellschaft angewiesen sind; andererseits kann man die Perspektive einnehmen, dass die Bürgerinnen und Bürger in direkten Demokratien es sich stärker gewohnt sind, (Abstimmungs-)Informationen kritisch zu lesen.
I consider disinformation to be a particularly dangerous threat to any country that lives in a democracy - not only to those, such as Switzerland, that have direct democracy. I live in Costa Rica, a country that was an example of democracy in the past. But today disinformation, coming from the executive branch itself and from the mouth of a populist and authoritarian president, has polarised the Costa Rican population. It has polarised the Costa Rican population and manipulated a large part of it, making it believe that it disrespects the Political Constitution, the other Supreme Powers: Legislative and Judicial, Due Process and the Public Institution. Putting them all at the service of the Executive. This is the path that Costa Rica's "democracy" must follow, hand in hand with the "leadership" of Rodrigo Chaves.
Considero que la desinformación es una amenaza especialmente peligrosa para todo país que vive en democracia; no solo para los que, como Suiza, tienen una democracia directa. Vivo en Costa Rica, país que fue ejemplo de democracia en el pasado. Pero actualmente la desinformación, proveniente del propio Poder Ejecutivo y de la boca de un presidente populista y autoritario. Ha polarizado a la población costarricense y manipulado a buena parte de ella; haciéndola creer irrespetar la Constitución Política, los otros Supremos Poderes: Legislativo y Judicial, el Debido Proceso y la Institución Pública. Poniéndolos todos al servicio del Ejecutivo. Es el camino que la "democracia" de Costa Rica debe seguir, de la mano y con el "liderazgo" de Rodrigo Chaves.
Thank you for your contribution and your perspective from Costa Rica. Do you realise that there is a critical, fact-based discourse in Costa Rica that names untruths?
Vielen Dank für Ihren Beitrag und Ihre Perspektive aus Costa Rica. Nehmen Sie es denn so wahr, dass es einen kritischen, auf Fakten gestützten Diskurs gibt in Costa Rica, der Unwahrheiten benennt?
Every country, be it Switzerland or any other country in the world, must have the right to universal suffrage. To this end, when elections are held, there must be a prior information campaign at all levels for voters about the voting systems, whether local, regional or national. Another aspect that should be important is that citizens should be able to be informed about the electoral messages and debates of the various political forces in the official or private media that are running in the elections, together with a presentation of the electoral programme of the respective party. The problem of misinformation can arise when the country, after hard times of crisis, loses faith in the authorities due to previous mismanagement or lack of compliance with the minimum institutional loyalty required of the different political forces standing for election. It is true that Switzerland and the United States may have different anthropological traits, but this does not mean that in either case disinformation, or worse still, the manipulation of information, can exist in elections in order to empower leaders who border on nihilistic currents, associated with criminal groups with sometimes unknown criminal records and with the danger of implementing programmes such as the socialisation of fear. César De Lucas Ivorra. San Juan De Alicante. Spain.
Todo país, ya sea Suiza u otro del mundo, debe tener el derecho al sufragio universal. Para ello, cuando se realizan unas elecciones, debe haber previamente una campaña divulgativa a todos los niveles para los votantes, relacionada con los sistemas de voto, ya sean locales, regionales y estatales. También otro aspecto que debería ser importante, sería el poder estar informado el ciudadano, sobre los mensajes electorales y debates de las diversas fuerzas políticas en los medios de comunicación ya sean oficiales o privados que se presentan a los comicios, junto con una exposición del programa electoral del partido respectivo. El problema de la desinformación puede radicar, cuando el país, tras épocas duras de crisis, pierde su fe en las autoridades por una mala gestión anterior, o falta de cumplimiento de la lealtad institucional mínima exigible a las diferentes fuerzas políticos que se presentan a los comicios. Es vedad que Suiza o Estados Unidos, pueden tener rasgos antropológicos diferentes, pero no por ello, en ninguno de los dos casos, llegar a existir en las elecciones la desinformación, o peor aún, la manipulación de información, para potenciar a líderes que rozan corrientes nihilistas, asociadas a grupos delictivos con certificados de penales desconocidos a veces y con la peligrosidad de implantar programas como la socialización del miedo. César De Lucas Ivorra. San Juan De Alicante. España.
Thank you for your contribution. I would like to remind you that there is a difference between misinformation and disinformation. We only speak of disinformation when we are dealing with deliberately disseminated false news and misleading information.
Vielen Dank für Ihren Beitrag. Gerne erinnere ich Sie daran, dass ein Unterschied zwischen Fehlinformation und Desinformation besteht. Nur, wenn es sich um bewusst gestreute Falschnachrichten und irreführende Informationen handelt, spricht man von Desinformation.
Yes, for the votes in France, the media are subsidised by the state to lie to us.
oui pour les votes chez nous en France les médias sont subventionnés par l'état pour nous mentir
Education or the elimination of illiteracy should be state and therefore government policy. It is the basis so that the generations that are still informed and those that follow them can acquire sufficient criteria to establish the difference between information and disinformation (although it is becoming more and more demanding to find true information). Governments that are not clear on this premise are not healthy governments that intend to administer nations.
La Educacion o eliminacion del analfabetismo deberian ser politicas de estado y por ende de gobierno. Es la base para que las generaciones que aun se informan y las que les siguen puedan adquirir el suficiente criterio para establecer la diferencia entre informacion y desinformacion (aunque cada vez es mas exigente encontrar la verdadera informacion). Los gobiernos que no tengan claro esta premisa no son gobiernos sanos que pretendan administrar las naciones.
Thank you for your contribution - but as you can see from some of the angrier comments here on the site, governments do not enjoy the trust of all citizens. Sometimes justified, sometimes unjustified. What would such a policy for education and information look like that would prevent the government in power from acting in its own interests?
Vielen Dank für Ihren Beitrag - wie Sie hier auf der Seite im Hinblick auf manche der wütenderen Kommentare sehen, geniessen aber Regierungen nicht das Vertrauen aller Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Manchmal berechtigt, manchmal unberechtigt. Wie würde denn eine solche Politik für Bildung und Information aussehen, die verhindert, dass die machthabende Regierung im Eigeninteresse wirkt?
No, for 2 reasons:
1. Representatives, at least on some subjects, are MORE subject to misinformation than the public, I suppose because lobbyists mislead them. For example: https://www.chicagotribune.com/1997/11/17/americans-aid-views-foreign-to-washington/#:~:text=no%20one%20misunderstands%20the%20public
2. Everyone makes mistakes, but the public has every incentive to fix them, while politicians have incentives to COVER UP mistakes, to protect their donors, careers and images. So direct democracy is evolutionary, while we can see representative democracy devolving before our eyes, especially in the US.
Thank you very much for your contribution! You are of course right that politicians are also influenced by the work of lobbies. However, the entire population must have access to information in the first place. Do you not see this being threatened in any way? And in general, do you see a positive development in direct democracy - including in the USA?
Vielen Dank für Ihren Beitrag! Sie haben natürlich recht, dass die Politikerinnen und Politiker auch unter dem Einfluss der Arbeit von Lobbys stehen. Allerdings muss eine gesamte Bevölkerung ja überhaupt Zugang zu Informationen haben. Sehen Sie dies in keiner Form bedroht? Und generell sehen Sie eine positive Entwicklung der direkten Demokratie - auch in den USA?
Join the conversation!