If you wanted to know what was going on in the world in Paris in 1750, you would go to l'arbre de Cracovie or the Krakow tree. This chestnut tree was so named not because of its association with the Polish town, but because at the time the slang term for fake news was "krakes", and the space under its branches was full of such news.
And yet the tree attracted not only gossips who claimed to know what was going on in the corridors of power because they eavesdropped on conversations or peered into private letters. It also attracted the attention of the government, which wanted to know how Parisians were thinking, as well as foreign powers, which sent agents to gather information - or plant it.
Robert Darnton, a Harvard historian, reflected on this flow of information in a speech he gave to the American Historical Association at the turn of the millennium. Given that the newspapers were under the control of the old regime, the gossip that spread under the canopy of this tree took various forms in the form of "public noise" and songs that were sung in bars, discussed collectively in salons and printed are in satirical and slanderous pamphlets. Ultimately, Darnton argues, these anecdotes and stories contributed to the downfall of the French monarchy itself.
The end result of this was of course the essential contribution of the French Revolution to democracy.
But now we are here, we who live in liberal-democratic states that rely on an educated, engaged population for their continued survival, facing the "Cracow tree" of the 21st century. With the difference that this tree is ubiquitous, much faster and more powerful. As voters around the world go through the biggest election year in history, I increasingly wonder: Can democracy survive social media?
David Colon, a French historian who specializes in propaganda and mass manipulation, argues that while propaganda itself is nothing new, what is new is the proliferation of the Internet and the global scale enabled by social media, along with a decline in trust in filters (that is, institutional media).
There is a trinity of factors at work that are likely to worsen, all mutually reinforcing.
If you weaken the truth and create false alternatives, in the long run you weaken the ability of citizens to differentiate between what is real and what is not, and democracy becomes impossible, said French historian David Colon.
The first, and probably not the least surprising to most, is fake news. The recent rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has made tangible the future of fake footage of politicians saying things they didn't actually say (or of course the Pope wearing something he never wore) and deepfake pornography targeting celebrities like Taylor Swift. However, it will be worse. French gaming studio Drama recently released footage from its video game "Unrecord", which looks like a real body camera footage. Judge for yourself.
Arriving at a meaningful common position on the current conflicts is difficult enough in itself.
What will happen in the era, just around the corner, when during global crises people are bombarded with footage of AI-generated attacks, attacks that didn't happen, and are pressured to react in real time? Conspiracy theories will abound even more, such as those that emerged after the suspicious death of Alexei Navalny, claiming that he was killed by Western intelligence agencies or even that he was an agent of the Kremlin. Some people will believe anything, including a lie, and others will believe nothing, including the truth.
Second, the rise of the so-called "news influencers" additionally breaks our common informational reality - without sometimes being aware of it. For example, how many of the nearly 500.000 followers of the Breakthrough News TikTok account know that it is one of several social media accounts linked to American billionaire Neville Roy Singam, whose alleged promotion of Kremlin and Beijing interests was thoroughly chronicled in detailed analyzes published in “ New York Times" and "Daily Bust"
It's not just a problem with TikTok: Russell Brand's YouTube channel has over 6,8 million subscribers with his signature "just asking, man" concept of mixing information with dubious claims that leave viewers with the impression that the truth is both impossible to come by, but also that there is a truth that "they" are hiding from you. (Yes, almost seven million people inexplicably find Russell Brand a good source of geopolitical analysis).
For state actors such as Russia, China, and Iran, the purpose of spreading disinformation is not so much to convince the Western public to believe something in particular, but to undermine their trust in everything
These trends are destructive in themselves, but as Peter Pomerantsov states in his 2019 book This Is Not Propaganda, the third arrow aimed at the heart of democracy is the fact that authoritarian regimes actively use and encourage them in the ubiquitous information war. This often involves manipulating the fine line of things that sound somewhat possible but are not, such as the recent misinformation put out by the Kremlin that French "mercenaries" were killed in Ukraine.
Last week, the French digital counterintelligence agency, Viginum, uncovered a large Russian propaganda network called "Portal Kombat", whose target was Western Europe.
For state actors such as Russia, China, and Iran, the purpose of these operations is not so much to convince the Western public to believe in something, but to undermine their trust in everything.
"If you weaken the truth and create false alternatives, in the long run you weaken the ability of citizens to distinguish between what is real and what is not, and democracy becomes impossible," Colon said. And the end result is, of course, that in that space of general loss of trust, disbelief and not knowing who to trust, more and more people turn to the strong hand of authoritarianism.
Here we are, faced with a world of enormous complexity, cognitively trained for instant availability on demand, expected to have and share opinions on everything and broken into information silos, because the filter - at the time it is most needed - can no longer function effectively. Classic media are far from perfect, but when they make a mistake, they publish a correction. Does anyone expect the same from Russell Brand? We haven't even reached the middle of this dark forest, what should we do?
Authoritarian states have a solution: strict control over isolated internet spaces. However, for liberal democracies, the Chinese model would represent "destroying the countryside to save the countryside". And besides, the Western public is aware of censorship, and any approach that relies on control is likely to be counterproductive.
And what about ditching social media altogether? A few months ago I quit X (formerly known as Twitter) in exasperation, but when I told David Colon he stopped, looked me straight in the eye and said, "You shouldn't have done that." From the aspect of the quality of my life, I can't say that I regret that decision, but it is possible that it was selfish. Colon's position was that by leaving, I abdicated my broader social responsibility to not let misinformation win.
In fact, some people, like Elika le Bon, a British-born, US-educated Iranian lawyer, have made the exact opposite decision. They have dedicated their social media presence to countering the government's disinformation campaigns. In Le Bon's case, she is fighting against what she describes as a relentless barrage of misinformation and propaganda about the Middle East that emanates in various ways from Iran.
When I asked her to find broader ways to immunize people from her personal experiences of fighting against certain misinformation, she pointed to the reason why institutional media is lagging behind.
"For many, their "impersonality" is the reason why they have less confidence in them. "You see," she said in our online conversation, "the fact that I can now see your face and know who you are adds to the credibility of what you are saying."
Colon also focused on strengthening trust in the media as a solution, specifically mentioning the Trust in Journalism Initiative, which, like an organic label, would identify media organizations that adhere to a certain set of journalistic practices. That might be useful for those who want to believe but aren't sure who to believe - but what about those whose general skepticism is already too deeply ingrained?
I have to admit that transparency and labels seem insufficient considering what we are facing, and what lies ahead. To paraphrase the Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci, there are many reasons to indulge in the pessimism of the intellect. In order for this not to happen, we need enormous efforts to nurture the optimism of the will.
The text is taken from "The Guardian"
Translation: NB
Bonus video:
