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

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?

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?

That is, almost everything that ends up in the media.
Cioé quasi tutto quello che finisce nei media.

As voters, we are still perfectly capable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood and will not be manipulated by any false or disinformation. Incidentally, this is also the case for the vast majority of responsible citizens. That is why we reject all state-imposed censorship. This is unworthy of a democracy and only exists in autocracies and dictatorships.
Wir sind als Wähler immer noch bestens in der Lage, zwischen Wahrheit und Unwahrheit zu unterscheiden und lassen uns keinesfalls von irgendwelchen Falsch- oder Desinformationen manipulieren. Das ist übrigens bei der überwiegenden Mehrheit der mündigen Bürger auch der Fall. Deshalb lehnen wir jegliche staatlich verfügte Zensur ab. Das ist einer Demokratie unwürdig und gibt es nur in Autokratien und Diktaturen.

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?

Thank you for your pertinent question! We are going through a transitional phase in which legislative frameworks are struggling to keep up with the rapid pace of media and digital change. Examples such as Australia, which has banned WhatsApp for under-16s, show the importance of adapting laws to protect the most vulnerable from the dangers of disinformation and manipulation.
However, strict legislation must be accompanied by active prevention. Investing in media literacy is essential to develop citizens who can discern reliable sources, understand the algorithms that shape our online choices and question biased narratives. This should start at school, but also extend to awareness-raising campaigns for all generations.
Finally, it is imperative to strengthen collaboration between governments, the media, educational institutions and digital platforms to regulate content while respecting freedom of expression. This coordinated approach is essential to restore a healthier media environment and protect the vitality of our direct democracies.
In short: adapting laws, investing in education and strengthening international cooperation are the keys to meeting these challenges and preserving transparent information at the service of citizens.
Merci pour votre question pertinente ! Nous traversons une phase transitoire où les cadres législatifs peinent à suivre la rapidité des mutations médiatiques et numériques. Des exemples comme l’Australie, qui a interdit WhatsApp aux moins de 16 ans, montrent l’importance d’adapter les lois pour protéger les plus vulnérables des dangers de la désinformation et de la manipulation.
Cependant, une législation stricte doit être accompagnée d’une prévention active. Investir dans l’éducation aux médias est essentiel pour former des citoyens capables de discerner les sources fiables, de comprendre les algorithmes qui façonnent nos choix en ligne et de questionner les récits biaisés. Cela devrait commencer dès l’école, mais aussi s’étendre à des campagnes de sensibilisation pour toutes les générations.
Enfin, il est impératif de renforcer la collaboration entre gouvernements, médias, institutions éducatives et plateformes numériques pour réguler les contenus tout en respectant la liberté d’expression. Cette approche coordonnée est essentielle pour restaurer un environnement médiatique plus sain et protéger la vitalité de nos démocraties directes.
En résumé : adapter les lois, investir dans l’éducation et renforcer la coopération internationale sont les clés pour relever ces défis et préserver une information transparente au service des citoyens.

Thank you, this is a really exciting line of discussion! You see the path towards regulation and bans - this is probably controversial for many, especially in direct democracies. After all, under-16s don't vote yet. Accordingly, they have to accept what is decided. But you are certainly right that strengthening media skills is crucial. The approach in schools certainly makes sense. I know from conferences on the subject that children and young people are the easiest to reach in this field too - but how do you reach all those in other phases of life?
Danke Ihnen, das ist wirklich ein spannender Diskussionsstrang! Sie sehen den Weg Richtung Regulierung und Verbote - wahrscheinlich ist das für viele, gerade in direkten Demokratien kontrovers. Unter-16-Jährige wählen ja auch noch nicht. Entsprechend müssen diese akzeptieren, was entschieden wird. Bestimmt haben Sie aber recht, dass eine Stärkung der Medienkompetenz entscheidend ist. Der Ansatz an Schulen macht sicherlich Sinn. Von Konferenzen zum Thema weiss ich, dass auch in diesem Feld Kinder und Jugendliche noch am ehesten erreichbar sind - doch wie erreicht man all jene in anderen Lebensphasen?

In reading the comments published, I notice that the very term disinformation is not always very clear: let's not confuse opinions, which too often take themselves for the truth, with facts. The problem lies with the facts, i.e. the truth of reality, which needs to be clearly established. A thing cannot be and not be. But facts can be distorted, amputated, obscured or even falsely invented. Therein lies the misinformation and the danger to democracy. Facts on which we can all agree - the size of the debt, the suicide rate in a country, etc. - give rise to the most diverse or extreme opinions, which are not a danger.
The important thing then, as George has explained so well, is the vital role of education, both in and out of school. This is a delicate task, given the huge rise in generalised mistrust and, it seems to me, the feeling that we have nothing to learn from others, which leads to thinking in isolation (with algorithms making a significant contribution to the phenomenon) and to a mortifying isolationism.
En lisant les commentaires publiés, je constate que le terme même de désinformation n’est pas toujours très clair.Ne confondons pas les opinions, qui se prennent trop souvent pour la vérité et les faits. Or le problème est bien au niveau des faits, c’est à dire de la vérité du réel qu’il est nécessaire d’établir clairement. Une chose ne peut pas être et ne pas être. Or les faits peuvent être déformés, amputés, occultés ou même faussement inventés. Là réside la désinformation et le danger pour la démocratie. Avec des faits sur lesquels on peut s’accorder, montant de la dette, taux de suicide dans un pays etc etc se développent les opinions les plus diverses ou extrêmes qui ne sont pas un danger.
L’important est alors comme l’exposé très bien George la place primordiale de l’éducation à l’école et en dehors. Tâche délicate vu l’immense montée de la défiance généralisée et , me semble-t-il, du sentiment que l’on a rien à apprendre de l’autre, ce qui conduit à une pensée en vase clos ( les algorithmes apportant leur contribution notable au phénomène) et à un enfermement mortifère.

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.
Join the conversation!