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
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
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?
Certainly, disinformation influences the opinion of voters. There is ample evidence of how these opinions can be manipulated.
Sicher, Desinformation beeinflusst die Meinung der Stimmenden. Da gibt es geneugend Beweise wie man diese Meinungen manupulieren kann.
And how could a society tackle this?
Und wie könnte eine Gesellschaft dagegen angehen?
If the Taliban prohibit women from going to school, it's because they understand that the best ally of obscurantism is ignorance and lack of culture. In Europe, even if there are (more and more?) too many illiterates, 4% in France, the media are free and sufficiently numerous for us to be able to assess a situation in full knowledge of the facts, whether it be political, economic, scientific, religious... fcd The unfortunate thing is that out of laziness or intellectual comfort, readers/spectators read or watch as a priority - and often exclusively - the media that correspond to their ideology. As for social networks, they are the bane of our societies, where speed is everything and verifying information takes a lot of time - time that we no longer have!
Si les talibans interdisent aux femme d'avoir accès à l'école, c'est parce qu'ils ont bien compris que le meilleur allié de l'obscurantisme est bien l'ignorance et l'inculture. En Europe, même s'il y a (de plus en plus ?) trop d'illettrés, 4% en France , les médias sont libres et suffisamment nombreux pour qu'on puisse en toute connaissance de cause apprécier une situation, qu'elle soit politique, économique , scientifique, religieuse...fcd Le malheur est que par paresse ou confort intellectuel les lecteurs-spectateurs lisent ou regardent en priorité -et souvent exclusivement- les médias qui correspondent à leur idéologie. Quant aux réseaux sociaux, ce sont la plaie de nos sociétés où prime la vitesse et vérifier une information prend beaucoup de temps; ce temps qu'on n'a plus !
Thank you very much for your contribution! How can a society that values culture and knowledge be nurtured in European democracies? Which education system enables the broadest participation?
Vielen Dank für Ihren Beitrag! Wie kann eine Gesellschaft, die ja Kultur und Wissen schätzt, gepflegt werden in den europäischen Demokratien? Welches Bildungssystem ermöglicht die breiteste Teilhabe?
The real question goes beyond the simple phenomenon of disinformation: is there still investigative journalism capable of playing its role as a counterweight in a world of globalised and increasingly globalised economies? With economic pressure on the big media groups, editorial offices in Switzerland and elsewhere are struggling to guarantee absolute independence, despite structures such as the SSR. Are freedom of expression and institutional support still enough to allow transparent and critical coverage of all subjects? That's the question on my mind!
Misinformation is a crucial threat to direct democracies, where citizens actively participate in major decisions through referendums or popular initiatives. If access to reliable information is distorted by biased reporting, popular sovereignty is eroded and democratic choices lose legitimacy.
At the same time, social networks and social engineering are profoundly transforming media dynamics. For more than a decade, we have been witnessing a transition in which the viral propagation of often misleading content rivals the work of the traditional media. Autocratic regimes have long exploited media engineering, but now even democracies are facing a growing polarisation of media systems, whether they lean right or left. Switzerland is no exception to this trend.
With global geopolitical polarisation, democracies are showing signs of contracting towards authoritarian models. To resist this trend, it is becoming imperative to revitalise genuine independent investigative journalism, defend the media against economic and political influences, and invest in media education. Direct democracy, the pillar of Swiss sovereignty, depends on the quality and transparency of the information that guides its citizens.
In a rapidly changing world, this vigilance is more than an ideal: it is a necessity if we are to preserve the very essence of direct democracy.
Thank you for sharing.
George C.
La véritable question dépasse le simple phénomène de désinformation : existe-t-il encore un journalisme d'investigation capable de jouer son rôle de contre-pouvoir dans un monde d'économie globalisée et de plus en plus globalisé? Avec la pression économique sur les grands groupes médiatiques, en Suisse comme ailleurs, les rédactions peinent à garantir une indépendance absolue, malgré des structures comme la SSR. La liberté d'expression et le soutien institutionnel sont-ils encore suffisants pour permettre une couverture transparente et critique de tous les sujets ? Cette question me taraude l'esprit!
La désinformation est une menace cruciale pour les démocraties directes, où les citoyens participent activement à des décisions majeures par référendum ou initiatives populaires. Si l’accès à une information fiable est faussé par des récits biaisés, la souveraineté populaire s’érode et les choix démocratiques perdent en légitimité.
Parallèlement, les réseaux sociaux et l’ingénierie sociale transforment profondément les dynamiques médiatiques. Depuis plus d’une décennie, nous assistons à une transition où la propagation virale de contenus souvent trompeurs rivalise avec le travail des médias traditionnels. Les régimes autocratiques exploitent l’ingénierie médiatique depuis longtemps, mais désormais, même les démocraties font face à une polarisation croissante des systèmes médiatiques, qu’ils penchent à droite ou à gauche. La Suisse n’échappe pas à cette évolution.
Avec la polarisation géopolitique mondiale, les démocraties montrent des signes de contraction vers des modèles autoritaires. Pour résister à cette tendance, il devient impératif de revitaliser un vrai journalisme d'investigation et indépendant, de défendre les médias contre les influences économiques et politiques, et d'investir dans l'éducation aux médias. La démocratie directe, pilier de la souveraineté suisse, dépend de la qualité et de la transparence de l’information qui guide les citoyens.
Dans un monde en mutation rapide, cette vigilance est plus qu’un idéal : c’est une nécessité pour préserver l’essence même des démocraties directes.
Merci pour le partage.
George C.
Dear George C.
Thank you very much for your contribution and your thoughts! The analysis is exciting and largely comprehensible. What could be done to counteract this development?
Lieber George C.
Vielen Dank für den Beitrag und die Gedanken! Die Analyse ist spannend und weitgehend nachvollziehbar. Mit welchen Mitteln könnte man denn dieser Entwicklung entgegenwirken?
The problem with disinformation lies in the loss of credibility of the population. This aspect can be exploited by those who have great resources to manipulate the political context in their favour, creating altered profiles of certain individuals, which are repeatedly disseminated by the media, which they control, until people accept them as good, to the detriment of those who are vilified by the same media.
El problema con la desinformación radica en la perdida de credibilidad de la población. Aspecto que puede ser aprovechando por quienes tienen grandes recursos para manipular a su favor el contexto político, creando perfiles alterados de ciertos individuos, que son divulgados repetitivamente por los medios de información, que controlan, hasta que la gente los aceptan como buenos en detrimento de quienes son vilependiados por los mismos medios referidos.
Facts do not change just because someone's opinion doesn't like them. Populists will always use ignorance to gain power and influence over the ill-informed. This is where Swiss referenda are better than those in places such as the UK because of the amount of factual information included with voting forms. How much of it people read is another thing entirely. I suspect most people's minds are already made up from social media manipulation long before they receive their voting slips.
In the immediate period after the Second World War the Soviet Union used misinformation and other propaganda techniques to ensure politicians sympathetic to them would take power, and when they did those countries effectively lost their democratic freedoms.
Today similar tactics from similar quarters can be seen in places such as Hungary, Slovakia, and even the US, while pressure groups such as AfD in Germany, Marine Le Pen's National Rally in France, and the Reform party in the UK all support a similar worldview. Their power comes from the manipulation of public opinion through targeted misinformation distributed on social media.
The question should not be is it happening - it clearly is - but who gains from the destabilisation of the West? Hubris will not keep Switzerland's referenda free of benign influence - we must all be vigilant.
Thank you for your contribution.
You are of course right that the official voting information relating to Switzerland provides a certain basis, but nevertheless - as you also write - the public discussion characterises the voting decision. The question is not "Is this really happening?" - but what impact does it have on referendums?
Vielen Dank für Ihren Beitrag.
Sie haben natürlich recht, dass die behördlichen Abstimmungsinformationen auf die Schweiz bezogen eine gewisse Grundlage bieten, trotzdem prägt - wie Sie es ebenfalls schreiben - die öffentliche Diskussion die Abstimmungsentscheidung. Die Frage lautet ja auch nicht, "Passiert das wirklich?" - sondern welche Auswirkungen hat es auf Volksabstimmungen.
The question implies that high officials -whether elected or not- are better rulers. I don’t think so. I think the Swiss are close to optimal, as good as it can get given human imperfection. Elect and then check them by referenda. I wish more countries would adopt that.
Also, misinformation in social media is unfortunately, the result of bad politics and traditional media. People still have access to politicians, TV and printed newspapers - they did not disappear anywhere. People see they are lying so turn to social media. Conspiracies in social media are a symptom, not the root disease.
My personal political view is that without better information, a country can progress in economy and industry only so much. When a society more complicated, it needs better information to make better decisions. Otherwise society makes bad decisions, crisis happen, infrastructure does not improve, and the country stays poor, hampered by its lack of organization and information. Maybe it is like a biological evolution, that large animals need more complex nervous system.
Opinions cannot be wrong, as they are subjective and the better argument or fact stands against an allegedly false assertion. The fact that opinions may not suit you or may sometimes be extreme or offensive is inevitable, but it is the price of a free society. There is no right not to be offended. It should be clear to every liberal that you can say anything that is not forbidden, the only limit is set by the law. The expression of opinion, one of the highest foundations of a free society, has never been in question, until today! With vague terms such as hate and agitation, the supposedly better morality of one's own, left-wing red-green woke people try to gain sovereignty of interpretation over what can be said. Even demanding censorship in social media. As if censorship and one-sided political control of opinion were not a far greater danger to a free society than having to put up with an unpopular opinion. A dangerous development that must be stopped at all costs.
Meinungen können nicht falsch sein, da subjektiv und gegen eine angeblich falsche Behauptung, steht das bessere Argument oder Fakt. Das Meinungen einem nicht passen oder auch mal extrem oder verletzend sein können, ist unabdingbar aber der Preis für eine freie Gesellschaft. Es gibt nun mal kein Recht auf nicht beleidigt zu werden. Es müsste eigentlich jedem Liberalen klar sein, man darf alles sagen was nicht verboten ist, die Grenze setzt nur das Gesetz. Die Meinungsäusserung eine der höchsten Grundlage einer freien Gesellschaft, stand nie in Frage, bis heute ! Mit schwammigen Begriffen wie Hass und Hetze, der vermeintlich besseren eigenen Moral, versuchen Linksrotgrünwoke die Deutungshoheit über Sagbares zu erlangen. Ja sogar Zensur in sozialen Medien zu fordern. Als ob Zensur und einseitig politische Kontrolle von Meinung nicht die weit grössere Gefahr für eine freie Geselschaft wäre, als eine ungeliebte Meinung ertragen zu müssen. Eine gefährliche Entwicklung die es unbedingt zu stoppen gilt.
Thank you for your contribution - you are of course right. However, facts come before opinions. And I'm sure you agree that broad information is the basis for forming an opinion.
Have a good day!
Vielen Dank für Ihren Beitrag - Sie haben natürlich recht. Allerdings steht vor Meinungen ja der Fakt. Und Sie stimmen mir sicherlich zu, dass eine breite Information die Grundlage dafür ist, dass man sich eine Meinung bilden kann.
Frohe Tage wünsche ich Ihnen!
It is hardly evident that misinformation (fake news) has a nefarious influence on popular votes. Poorly read newspapers, or newspapers of very poor quality, blatantly biased public or private radio and television broadcasts, and above all the social media (!) that do everything to avoid a calm and fair judgement on the issues. The modern citizen is literally bombarded with news about elections or popular votes: he comes out confused and uninformed, especially if he does not have a solid culture behind him. Most vulnerable are the young, who are easily influenced, while the elderly are already more crystallised in their convictions, and therefore less at risk. The emotional (!) results can already be seen in our parts, but they are even worse in certain countries abroad where confusion reigns supreme: the USA, Italy, France, and now Germany as well as England. At risk is the entire democratic system, which requires serious and very clear (!) information in order to function fairly and calmly. Unfortunately, no remedy can even be seen on the horizon; on the contrary!
È appena evidente che la disinformazione (fake news) hanno un'influenza nefasta sulle votazioni popolari. Giornali poco letti, o giornali di pessima qualità, emissioni radio- televisive pubbliche o private smaccatamente di parte, e soprattutto i social media (!) che fanno di tutto per evitare un giudizio sereno ed equo sugli argomenti. Il cittadino moderno è letteralmente bombardato da notizie sulle elezioni o votazioni popolari: ne esce confuso e disinformato, soprattutto se non ha una solida cultura alle spalle. Molto vulnerabili sono soprattutto i giovani che si fanno influenzare facilmente, mentre gli anziani sono già più cristallizzati nelle loro convinzioni, e perciò meno a rischio. I risultati emotivi (!) già si vedono dalle nostre parti, ma sono ancora peggiori in certi paesi all'estero dove la confusione regna sovrana: USA, Italia, Francia, e oggi pure la Germania nonché l'Inghilterra. A rischio è tutto il sistema democratico, che richiede un'informazione seria e ben chiara (!) per poter funzionare in modo equo e sereno. Purtroppo non si vedono nemmeno rimedi all'orizzonte; anzi!
Disinformation is easier to combat nowadays, when false or erroneous information can be disproved almost instantly thanks to the Internet. It is the citizen's responsibility to get information from reliable sources. Capitalist liberalism has the advantage that it is designed for adult citizens, and I believe it is essential for democracy that this principled basis is valued. Those who attack liberal capitalism fail to realise that the alternative they advocate leads to the planning and direction of human activities by the central state, the abolition of competition and its replacement by corporatist organisation and propaganda. This is the worst-case scenario, and it led during the 20th century to totalitarian regimes in various parts of the world. Switzerland is the best example of this, which managed to maintain its democracy and prosperity thanks to centuries of uninterrupted capitalism and tolerance. I hope that civilisation does not give in to the temptation to hand over to the state the responsibility for control that belongs to responsible citizens. That would be tantamount to surrendering the most precious Western principles of freedom.
La desinformación es más fácil de combatir hoy en día, cuando un dato falso o erróneo se puede desmentir casi instantáneamente gracias a Internet. Es responsabilidad del ciudadano informarse con fuentes confiables. El liberalismo capitalista tiene la ventaja de que está concebido para ciudadanos adultos, y considero fundamental para la democracia que esa base de principios sea valorada. Los que atacan el capitalismo liberal no se dan cuenta de que la alternativa que defienden lleva a la planificación y dirección de las actividades humanas por parte del Estado Central, la abolición de la competencia y su reemplazo por la organización corporativista y la propaganda. Este es el peor escenario posible, y nos llevó durante el siglo XX a caer en regímenes totalitarios en varias partes del mundo. Suiza es el mejor ejemplo de ello, que logró mantener su democracia y prosperidad gracias a siglos de capitalismo y tolerancia ininterrumpidos. Espero que la civilización no caiga en la tentación de ceder por completo al Estado la responsabilidad del control que le corresponde a los ciudadanos responsables. Eso equivaldría a renunciar a los más valiosos principios occidentales de libertad
Thank you for your interesting arguments! They seem to me to be somewhat in the tradition of Karl Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies". Do you know this book?
Are you really 100% convinced that the Internet makes it easier to combat disinformation? Many people fear that it will allow information to spread incredibly quickly and that corrections will not be able to keep up.
Vielen Dank für Ihre interessanten Argumentationen! Ein wenig scheinen sie mir in Tradition von Karl Poppers "Die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde" zu stehen. Kennen Sie dieses Buch?
Sind Sie denn wirklich überzeugt 100%, dass Desinformation durch das Internet leichter zu bekämpfen ist? Viele befürchten ja, dass das eine unglaublich schnelle Verbreitung ermöglicht, wo die Richtigstellungen gar nicht mehr nachkommen.
Thank you for your reply. Yes, I am an admirer of Karl Popper's philosophy. I also borrow ideas from Hayek in my commentary. In short, I think we need to raise our sights and assess whether a particular policy, in seeking to protect us from a danger such as disinformation, ends up producing "unintended" effects, far more harmful than what it was intended to prevent. In short, I believe that over-regulating against disinformation will tend towards censorship policies. Are we sure that such a censorship agent will be wise enough to decide what to censor? Are we willing to openly tolerate censorship in order to avoid fake news? Wasn't fake news common before the Internet era, and did it take much longer to disprove it?
Gracias por tu respuesta. Sí, soy un admirador de la filosofía de Karl Popper. También tomo prestadas ideas de Hayek en mi comentario. En resumen, creo que debemos elevar la visión y evaluar si una determinada política, en búsqueda de protegernos de un peligro como la desinformación, acabe produciendo efectos "no deseados", mucho más nocivos que lo que se quiso evitar. En resumen, considero que exagerar la regulación contra la desinformación va a tender hacia políticas de censura. ¿Estamos seguros que tal agente censor será lo suficientemente sensato en decidir qué censurar? ¿Estamos dispuestos a tolerar abiertamente la censura con tal de evitar noticias falsas? ¿Acaso las noticias falsas no eran habituales antes de la era de Internet, y demoraba mucho más tiempo desmentirlas?
I also see it as an excellent opportunity for journalism to focus on investigating and filtering the information that is disseminated. It could be an evolutionary boost for the journalistic profession.
Además, considero que es una excelente oportunidad para el periodismo, abocarse a investigar y filtrar las informaciones que se divulgan. Puede ser un empujón evolutivo para el oficio periodístico.
If you hope the Internet will improve things, stay cool! It is precisely social media that are the main cause of rampant disinformation. Voting is increasingly based on the crap spewed on these (mobile) media.
Se speri che Internet migliori le cose, stai fresco! Sono proprio i social la causa principale della disinformazione dilagante. Le votazioni avvengono sempre più in base alle cavolate sparate su questi media (cellulari).
Disinformation cannot be taken as something true, because behind the disinformers there are political and business or totalitarian governmental interests, disinformation is decided by each one, giving power to an entity to decide what is false or not, is giving power to a state or a political side to decide for us, there are many true news branded as false and why? Because many don't like to accept the truths as with the pandemic, the corrupt voting in Venezuela, about international organisms or people or families belonging to the world or national elite, that's why the marxists now call disinformation to what they don't like to come to light, besides the disinformation media is all owned by globalist people of left and right, it's not neutral at all.
La desinformación no se puede tomar como algo cierto, ya que, detras de los desinformadores existen intereses politicos y empresariales o gubernamentales totalitaristas, la desinformación la decide cada uno, darle poder a un ente para que decida que es falso o no, es darle poder a un estado o un lado politico para decidir por nosotros, hay muchas noticias verdaderas tachadas de falsas y porqué? Porque a muchos no les conviene aceptar las verdades como con la pandemia, las votaciones corruptas en Venezuela, sobre organismos internacionales o personas o familias pertenecientes a la elite mundial o nacional, por eso los marxistas ahora llaman desinformación a lo que no les gusta que salga a la luz, ademas los medios de desinformación son todos propiedad de gente globalista de izquierda y derecha, no es para nada neutral
You are right that free speech is a sensitive issue. And that something like a censorship commissioner would be dangerous. But that doesn't change the fact that civil society and - as you say - journalists need to deal with disinformation.
Not banning it does not mean that the effects of disinformation can be ignored. A common foundation about what is true is the basis for a vital discourse in a democratic society.
Thank you for your thoughts and input!
Sie haben recht, dass die freie Rede ein heikles Gut ist. Und dass etwas wie ein Zensurbeauftragter gefährlich wäre. Doch das ändert ja nichts daran, dass es zivilgesellschaftlich und - wie Sie sagen - journalistisch einen Umgang mit Desinformation braucht.
Diese nicht zu verbieten, bedeutet ja nicht, dass man die Effekte von Desinformation ignorieren kann. Ein gemeinsames Fundament darüber, was wahr ist, ist die Grundlage für einen vitalen Diskurs in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft.
Vielen Dank für Ihre Gedanken und Inputs!
Disinformation is a constant in most Western and Latin American countries, because the corporations that control the media are owned by the dominant economic groups, using them to manipulate the population. In the last elections in Mexico, the mainstream media openly supported the right-wing candidate and disseminated biased, lying, and bashing reports in an attempt to tilt electoral preferences towards the right-wing candidate, who has been denounced with evidence of serious corruption and professional incompetence. Disinformation in Mexico and in much of the world is paid for by the US government.
La desinformación es una constante en la mayoría de los países occidentales y de Latinoamérica, porque los corporativos que controlan los medios de comunicación son propiedad de los grupos económicos dominantes, usándolos para manipular a la población. En las elecciones pasadas en México, los grandes medios de comunicación apoyaron abiertamente a la candidata de la derecha y difundían notas sesgadas, mentirosas y golpeadoras buscando inclinar las preferencias electorales hacia la candidata de la derecha, denunciada con pruebas por hechos graves de corrupción, de incompetencia profesional. La desinformación en México y en gran parte del mundo, es pagada por el Gobierno de EU
The political bias and the lack of transparency of the media in several Latin American countries is a complaint we have been hearing for a long time, but could direct democracy, which has only just begun in Mexico, promote media transparency and reduce the level of misinformation? Or is it precisely this environment that prevents direct democracy from being used and established for the social good and the strengthening of democracy?
La inclinación política e intereses específicos poco transparentes de los medios de comunicación en varios países de Latinoamérica es una denuncia que escuchamos desde hace tiempo, pero acaso podría la democracia directa, que apenas nace en México, favorecer la transparencia de los medios y permitir disminuir el nivel de desinformación. O justamente este ambiente impide que la democracia directa se utilice e instaure para el bien social y el fortalecimiento democrático?
THE WORD DEMOCRACY IS JUST A CHEWING OF THE
OF CAPITALISM TO PRODUCE AND MAKE A PROFIT.
DEMOCRACY DECIDES WHAT IS GOOD FOR CAPITALISM AND WHAT IS NOT GOOD FOR CAPITALISM. .............
LA PALABRA DEMOCRACIA SOLO ES UNA MASCA
DEL CAPITALISMO DEL PRODUCIR Y OBTENER UNA GANANCIA .
LA DEMOCRACIA DECIDE LO QUE LE CONVIENE O NO AL CAPITALISMO.............
What nonsense in red-green sauce!
Che stupidaggine in salsa rosso-verde!
Many people don't understand that there is no 'good' misinformation. For example decry right-wing misinformation but accept left-wing misinformation. Or the other way round. By doing this, misinformation can thrive.
.
Concerning the original question: Swiss people are much more resistant to misinformation than Germans or French. Probably because from the young age they are accustomed to take responsibility for voting and see results. There is of course still a number of falsehoods and conspiracies, but less than I observe in Germany or France
Thank you very much, Mr Hiker, for these impressions! How do you know Germany and France?
Your thesis that the votes lead to a learning process has been partially confirmed by research:
Vielen Dank, Herr Hiker für diese Eindrücke! Wie kennen Sie denn Deutschland und Frankreich?
Ihre These, dass die Abstimmungen zu einem Lernprozess führen, wurde teilweise von der Forschung bestätigt:
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/do-social-media-fuel-fake-news-in-switzerland-as-much-as-in-the-us/48655928
I lived 7 years in Germany and have friends who live in France and Germany and we often meet. My 'sample size' is perhaps 15-20 people in each country.
.
Especially, a kind of practical, detailed debate between normal folk which is rather often in Switzerland, for example: how much it will cost to make wind turbines - this I never heard in Germany or France. In Germany or France it is, unfortunately, more ideologised, shallow and all-or-none: you care for the Mother Earth? So build wind turbines always, not counting costs. Public debates abroad are also much more party-related or politician-related. People support X because they support the party Y, not much thinking whether X itself good or bad.
I like Swiss regular referendums more and more when I see politics abroad. Swiss votes lead to learning process not only because people vote, but they also see results. Abroad, apathy is very common 'whomever I vote, nothing will change'.
Any opinion is misinformation if I don't get any evidence on the matter. Unfortunately, the tendency to form opinions is increasing. Facts and neutral reporting are on the decline. The trend is towards totalitarian paternalism.
Jede Meinung ist eine Falschinformation, wenn ich keine Evidenz zur Sache bekomme. Leider ist die Tendenz zur Meinungsbildung zunehmend. Die Fakten und neutrale Berichterstattung sind auf dem absteigenden Ast. Die Entwicklung läuft in die totalitäre Bevormundung.
Do you find it totalitarian that opinions are increasingly being publicised? In what contexts do you experience this?
Sie empfinden es als totalitär, dass zunehmend Meinungen publiziert werden? In welchen Zusammenhängen erleben Sie denn das so?
Not 'authoritarian paternalism': that's to be found in truly totalitarian countries, certainly not in liberal Switzerland!
Macché "paternalismo autoritario": quello va a cercarlo nei paesi veramente totalitari, non certo nella Svizzera liberale!
It is not misinformation, but even more so manipulated information, whereby only certain facts are reported or the facts interpreted so that the reader or listener is oriented to think what someone wants them to think. But this is how it has always been, so that when we were children, when we only saw American films, we all thought that cowboys were the good guys and American Indians were the bad guys. History texts have given us an idea of history, which in fact does not always reflect reality, so that the Middle Ages was a dark and retrograde period, whereas those who have delved deeper know that this is not true. The Resistance would like to pass as being made up of great heroes, but the witnesses and a few others (see Pansa) also recount very ugly things done by the partisans. In this period the risk is greater, because between social media, artificial intelligence and facts told according to the vision of the writer, it is really difficult to distinguish truth from fake news,
Non sono la disinformazione, ma ancor piu' l'informazione manipolata ,per cui vengono riferiti solo alcuni fatti o i fatti interpretati per cui chi legge o chi ascolta , viene orientata a pensare cio' che qualcuno vuole che si pensi. Pero' cosi' è sempre stato, per cui da piccoli , quando vedevamo solo fil americani, tutti pensavamo che i cowboy erano i buoni e gli indiani di america i cattivi. I testi di Storia, ci hanno fatto avere un'idea della storia , che di fatto non sempre riponde alla realtà, per cui il Medio Evo era un periodo , buio e retrogado, invece chi ha approfondito sa che non è vero. La Resistenza vorrebbe passare come fatta da grandi eroi, ma i testimoni e pochi altri ( vedasi Pansa) raccontano anche cose molto brutte messe in atto dai partigiani. In questo periodo il rischio è piu grande, perchè tra social, intelligenza artificiale e fatti raccontati secondo la visione di chi scrive, è veramente difficile distinguere la verità dalle fake news,
Thank you for your message! It is true that representations with the intention to deceive have a long history. However, what is already changing is the speed of dissemination and the fleeting nature. Do you think that the problem is growing as a result?
Vielen Dank für Ihre Nachricht! Tatsächlich ist es so, dass Darstellungen mit Täuschungsabsicht eine lange Geschichte haben. Doch, was sich ja gegenwärtig schon ändert, ist die Geschwindigkeit der Verbreitung und die Flüchtigkeit. Denken Sie, dass die Problematik dadurch wächst?
I agree that misinformation currently is less plain lie (which are easy to disprove) but more often selectively preferring one side. Media like SWI have a particular responsibility here. Short format of news allows hiding arguments of one side of the story. But the result would be a misinformation, nevertheless.
I don't know about Switzerland but in Spain and other western countries the traditional media (press and TV) are the main cause of disinformation, if you want to know the truth in my country (Spain) you have to go to social networks like X (Twitter).
No se en Suiza pero en España y en otros países occidentales los medios de comunicación tradicionales (prensa y TV) son los principales causantes de la desinformación, si quieres saber la verdad en mi país (España) tienes que ir a redes sociales como X (Twitter).
And what do you think of Swissinfo? Different from the Spanish media?
Und wie finden Sie dann Swissinfo? Anders als die spanischen Medien?
Isn't the problem disinformation!!!? It's bad journalism these days! Of course, true democracy gives every opportunity for all this bad information to exist!
Le problème n'est-il pas la désinformation !!? C'est du mauvais journalisme de nos jours ! Bien sûr, la vraie démocratie donne toutes les possibilités à toutes ces mauvaises informations d’exister !
Join the conversation!