Fifteen years ago, many people hoped social media platforms would foster freer, more democratic debate online.
Today, however, troubling trends dominate – from TikTok activity during Romania’s presidential elections to the surge of online hate, particularly targeting female politicians.
What’s your view? How do social media platforms influence public debate, elections and referendums? Share your thoughts with us.
I’m not at all worried. I rule out conspiracy theories on principle. Nor am I concerned about the issue of privacy. Perhaps I’m just lucky and haven’t (yet) experienced any personal incidents. I’m referring solely to Switzerland. I believe there are far more effective ways to manipulate democracy. We’ve all witnessed cases of media witch-hunts (recently in Ticino). Journalism plays a leading role. For an ordinary citizen, it is difficult to distinguish fake news from reality. But then, relatively quickly, all the background noise dies down and democracy resumes its work, along with the mechanisms created to safeguard it. It is clear that, with state-supported media outlets, these fail to maintain impartiality, and journalists – paid indirectly or almost entirely by the state and subject to social pressure – are rarely able to think outside the box. Social media is merely a highly polarised sounding board and is incapable of providing in-depth analysis. Those who were in favour remain in favour and shout their support. Those who were against remain against and shout their opposition. To look beyond our own Switzerland, one example is provided by social media platform X, where Trump shouts whatever he likes, but America is split between those for and against. It is pointless to have invested billions in social media when the public realises that something is amiss and that posts – even those by the president – are nothing but shouting. Even here at swissinfo, which openly acknowledges its strongly left-leaning political stance, there are debates – sometimes heated ones – that show social media is not decisive in the choices citizens ultimately make.
Non sono per nulla preoccupato. Escludo, per mia convinzione, complottismi. Non sono preoccupato nemmeno per il tema della privacy. Forse sono solo fortunato e non ho (ancora) mai vissuto episodi personali. Mi voglio riferire sol alla Svizzera. Credo che ci siano modi molto più efficaci per manipolare la democrazia.. Abbiamo tutti assistito a casi di linciaggio mediatico (recentemente in Ticino). Il giornalismo è un attore di primo piano. Per un semplice cittadino è difficile scindere il fake dalla realtà. Ma poi, in tempi relativamente brevi, tutto il rumore di fondo sparisce e torna a lavorare la democrazia, i meccanismi creati per cercare di assicurarla. Palese è che avendo mezzi di informazione sostenuti dalla Stato, questi non riescono a mantenere equidistanza e i giornalisti, pagati indirettamente o quasi dallo Stato e sottoposti a pressione sociale (pochissimi giornalisti cantano fuori dal coro). I social sono solo una cassa di risonanza che è molto polarizzata e non sono in grado di fare approfondimento. Chi era pro rimane pro e urla pro. Chi era contro rimane contro e urla contro. Per uscire dalla nostra Svizzera, un esempio è dato dal social X, dove Trump urla tutto quello che vuole, ma l'America si spacca in pro e contro. Inutile avere investito miliardi anche nei sociale quando il popolo si rende conto che qualcosa non va e i post, anche del presidente, sono solo urla. Anche qui, in swissinfo, che palesemente si riconosce l'orientamento politico fortemente tendente a sinistra, ci sono dibattiti, ancher volte pesanti, che dimostrano che i social non sono decisivi per le scelte che poi il cittadino farà.
Good afternoon, Mr Giandeini, ____Please rest assured that we are committed to approaching issues with an open mind. As far as I can tell, Swissinfo employs people with very different political views – but what matters most is not so much this, but rather professionalism and an awareness that everyone has biases. It is the duty of journalists to continually engage with issues in an open-minded and fresh way – and we take this duty very seriously. ____I’d also like to ask you something else: you write that sometimes all the background noise falls silent, and democracy starts working again – what sort of moments are you referring to?
Guten Tag Herr Giandeini, ____Seien Sie sich versichert, dass wir engagiert sind, uns Themen unvoreingenommen zu nähern. Soweit ich es überblicken kann, arbeiten bei Swissinfo Menschen mit sehr unterschiedlicher politischer Ausrichtung - das entscheidende ist aber weniger dies, sondern Professionalität und das Bewusstsein dafür, dass jeder Mensch Biases hat. Es ist die Aufgabe von Journalistinnen und Journalisten, sich Themen immer wieder offen und neu anzunehmen - und wir nehmen diese Aufgabe sehr ernst. ____Gerne wollte ich Sie aber noch etwas anderes fragen: Sie schreiben, manchmal verstumme der ganze Lärm im Hintergrund, und die Demokratie funktioniert wieder - was sind denn dies für Momente, die Sie damit meinen
As AI has evolved, it has become easy for a single individual to create clusters of accounts in the online space by owning large numbers of SIM cards—primarily in Southeast Asia—and combining smartphone IMEIs, telephone numbers and free email addresses. Using SIM boxes, they can randomly generate combinations of smartphones and telephone numbers in a matter of seconds, thereby amassing a vast number of social media accounts. Furthermore, by having AI conduct chats, it has become possible to behave just like a human online. Consequently, we now find ourselves constantly having to question whether the social media posts we encounter were actually written by a human, or whether they were generated by an AI chatbot. Consequently, even I, writing this comment, am no longer sure whether I am a human or an AI chatbot.
AIが進化して、東南アジアを中心にした地域でSIMを大量に所有して、スマホの固有番号と電話番号とフリーメールアドレスを組みわせて、SIMBOXによって数秒単位でスマホと電話番号の組み合わせをランダムに生成して、SNSのアカウントを大量に所有することで、一人の人物が、ネット空間上にアカウントのクラスターを発生させることが容易に可能になりました。そして、チャットをAIに行わせることで、ネット空間上ではまるで人のように振る舞うことが可能となっています。そうなると、私たちが相対しているSNSの書き込みは、果たして、人が書いたのか、それとも、AIのチャット機能が書いたものなのかを常に疑う必要がでてきました。こうして、この欄にコメントしている私も、人なのかAIのチャットbotなのか、どちらなのか分からなくなっています。
Thank you very much for your insightful explanation; I’m writing this to you – I’m sure of it – as a human being. However, the machine ensures that you can read the words I’m typing in German in Japanese. Have a lovely day!
Vielen Dank für Ihre kenntnisreiche Schilderung, das schreibe ich Ihnen - da bin ich sicher - als Mensch. Die Maschine sorgt aber dafür, dass Sie die Worte, die ich auf Deutsch tippe, auf Japanisch lesen können. Haben Sie einen schönen Tag!
I am concerned. Remember the one State that launched a 700 million USD plus budget simply to influence the media, social and commercial? Unfortunately nowadays fake news and manufactured news dominate the media.
Good afternoon, Mr Tschannen,____Thank you very much for your contribution. However, in this context, it strikes me as odd that you are singling out Israel. The amount is substantial and represents a massive increase on last year’s budget – which is why it is making headlines. Yet by international standards, particularly when compared with social media conglomerates in the US and China that are intertwined with government interests, it is comparatively small.
Guten Tag Herr Tschannen,____Vielen Dank für Ihren Beitrag. Es erscheint mir in dem Kontext aber seltsam, dass Sie Israel hervorheben. Der Betrag ist hoch und eine massive Erhöhung zum Vorjahresbudget - darum sorgt er für Schlagzeilen. Doch im internationalen Vergleich, gerade, auch im Hinblick auf Social Media-Konzerne, die in den USA und China mit Regierungsinteressen verschränkt ist, ist er vergleichsweise klein.
As is always the case in armed conflicts, bots and fake news are present on both sides, but particularly in the Western press.
Bots und Fake News gibt es, wie immer in bewaffneten Konflikten, auf beiden Seiten, vor allem aber in der westlichen Presse.
As you are no doubt aware, claiming that ‘XY exists on both sides’ is a rhetorical strategy. This is known as ‘both-sidesism’.
Wie Ihnen selbst sicher bewusst ist, ist es eine rhetorische Strategie zu behaupten "XY gebe es auf beiden Seiten". Diese nennt man "Both Sideism".
Most major ‘social media’ platforms are provided by commercial providers (almost exclusively via smartphone apps) and are largely based in non-European countries.____That is why I am in favour of us here in Switzerland establishing and further developing our own and European platforms, as we do on swissinfo. These should also have a legal framework that allows for free and objective expression of opinion, whilst also fostering a sense of human connection.____I think we have missed the boat (for the past 10 years) when it comes to setting up our own “social media” platforms in Europe as a counterbalance to the rampant, unregulated platforms run by Musk and the tech giants in the US. Hate must not be allowed to spread freely or be tolerated, because it marginalises people and can be deadly. History shows us this time and again. In today’s digital world, such information spreads faster than anything before. ____Sometimes I tell myself to just delete the apps and go where people can exchange objective and friendly opinions and knowledge.
Die meisten grossen "Sozialen Medien" werden von kommerziellen Anbietern (fast ausschliessli über Smartphome-Apps) gestellt und grösstenteils von nicht europäischen Ländern getragen.____Deshalb bin ich dafür, das wir hier in der Schweiz wie auf swissinfo eigene und europäische Plattformen gründen und weiterentwickeln. Diese auch den rechtlichen Rahmen haben, mit freier sachli Meinung, aber auch einen mitmenschli Rahmen bilden.____Ich denke das wir den Zeitpunkt verpasst haben (seit 10 Jaar), in Europa "Soziele Medien" selbst zu gründen als Gegenpart zu den ausufernden nicht kontrollierten Plattform von Musk und an den Tekzaren in den USA. Hass darf nicht frei und tolertiert sein, weil es ausgrenzt und tödli sein kann. Die Geschichte zeigt uns das immer wieder. In der heutigen digitalen Welt sind solche Informationen so schnell wie nichts vorher. ____Manchmal sag ich mir, Apps einfach löschen und dahin gehen, wo man sachli und freundli Meinungen und Wissen austauschen kann.
Thank you very much for setting out your perspective. There’s one thing I’m not quite clear on, though: you write that Europe has missed the boat when it comes to its own social media – but are you still in favour of setting up European platforms? Do you mean we shouldn’t be talking about social media at all – or do you think we should give it a go now, even though we’ve been slow off the mark for a while?
Vielen Dank für das Schildern Ihrer Perspektive. Etwas wird mir aber nicht ganz klar: Sie schreiben, dass man in Europa den Zeitpunkt für eigene Soziale Medien verpasst hat - Sie sind aber trotzdem für die Gründung europäischer Plattformen? Meinen Sie damit keine Soziale Medien - oder meinen Sie, man solle es nun probieren, obwohl es eine Weile verschlafen worden ist
There are alternative solutions. Algorithms and content moderation could be made openly accessible, or users might be allowed to opt out. Messages on social media could be made interoperable between companies (Facebook, Instagram, X etc.), just as phone calls work equally well across brands and different networks (Swisscom, Sunrise etc.). The EU once attempted to make this compulsory, although I'm unsure whether it actually happened. Overall, a common misconception exists that censorship, algorithms and other flaws of American social media can be simply replaced with censorship, algorithms etc., but aligned with our own values and interests. It repeats the failure of the Soviet Union politburo to counter free media by imitating its superficial features.
Social media still have a net positive role in democracy, as proven by the fear of dictators, who universally ban or restrict them. Anybody can name examples. Dictators' fear is the best proof that society needs channels to obtain information and discuss independently of politicians and big media businesses, even if people also discuss nonsense. An important question is whether the fundamental freedom of speech still exists in Western countries, where a few politicians and big media companies dominate public discourse? Another old observation is that politicians with concrete successes can withstand criticism; only inefficient politicians without objective results to show can be overcome by trivial gossip and conspiracies. An example is Britain today, where unpopular prime ministers who were quickly forced to resign coincided with attempts to curb social media access, reduce anonymity on the internet, and mass arrests over comments on social media (over 12,000 in 2023).
Thank you very much for your account and the clear examples. Your description of a policy that delivers results is in line with the views of some – when it comes to maintaining public trust. ____You are right to say that authoritarian regimes restrict social media – but they rarely ban it outright. Even the Taliban in Afghanistan lifted the internet blackout after just a few days. Some authoritarian figures are even celebrated on social media; elsewhere, manipulation can shift to the algorithms: public debate is shaped by the type of content that is given broad reach by algorithms that are often designed in a non-transparent manner. How do you view this effect of social media?
Vielen Dank für Ihre Schilderung und die nachvollziehbaren Beispiele. Ihre Schilderung einer Politik, die Ergebnisse liefert, deckt sich mit der Vorstellung einiger - wenn es ums Bewahren des gesellschaftlichen Vertrauens geht. ____Sie sagen richtig, dass autoritäre Regime die Sozialen Medien einschränken - verbieten tun sie aber selten. Sogar die Taliban in Afghanistan haben die Internetabschaltung nach wenigen Tagen wieder aufgehoben. Einige autoritäre FIguren werden selbst gefeiert auf den Sozialen Medien; anderswo kann sich die Manipulation in die Algorithmen verlagern: Die öffentliche Debatte wird davon geprägt, welche Art Inhalte von oft intransparent gestalteten Algorithmen überhaupt breit Reichweite bekommen. Wie sehen Sie diesen Effekt der Sozialen Medien
Dear Mr von Wyl, thank you for your interest in my opinion. You asked about algorithms specifically. Ideally, algorithms should be made explainable, optional to disable, or banned altogether. Online companies existed without them, so algorithms are not a necessity for their business models. I believe that widespread education of the public—especially young people—is more important than laws for preventing misinformation, as misinformation has become pervasive, also outside social media. Education about the existence and workings of algorithms is a crucial part of this effort. The public needs to be educated that their online discussions are often curated. Some topics, individuals, and perspectives are amplified, while others hidden. Journalists, such as those at Swissinfo, could play a positive role in this regard. __Some platforms—such as classic internet forums and mailing lists—do not use such algorithms. So far, social media companies seem to use them to generate more ad revenue. Thus, theoretically, they have no incentive to suppress the same topics as traditional media, preserving their role as alternative sources of information. However, algorithms could extremely easily be repurposed as tools for censorship and propaganda, and their technical opacity might be ideal for plausible deniability. Notably, proposed British regulations appear to extend to platforms without algorithms, and force preferential treatment of certain sources—such as the government-controlled BBC. This would clearly politicize social media companies and weaponize algorithms for state censorship and propaganda.
Those are well-reasoned arguments – thank you very much!
Das sind gut argumentierte Ausführungen, vielen Dank!
Given that there are no borders in the digital space, I believe that national-level legislation has lost its meaning. I believe it is necessary to enact a treaty with provisions similar to those of the DSA, to establish technology that enables recipients to identify content originating from regions outside the signatory states, and to build a system that allows recipients to make their own judgements. The reality is that the owners of SimFarms no longer exist within any national borders.
デジタル空間に国境がない以上、国のレベルでの法規制はもはや意味がなくなったと、私は考えます。DSAのような内容を持つ条約を制定して、締約国以外の地域からの発信を受信者に分かるような技術を確立して、受信者自身が判断できる仕組みの構築作りが必要であると、私は考えます。シムファームの所有者は、最早、国境に存在していないのが実情ですから。
That is an interesting argument, but what significance would this agreement still have if the citizens of those countries were able to decide – if I have understood you correctly – to opt out of the regulations and the protection afforded by this agreement? The big tech companies would have even less reason to comply with regulatory efforts.
Das ist eine interessante These, aber welche Bedeutung hätte dieses Abkommen denn noch, wenn die Bürger:innen der Länder entscheiden können, wie sie - wenn ich Sie richtig verstanden habe - auf die Regulierungen und den Schutz durch dieses Abkommen verzichten? Die grossen Tech-Unternehmen hätten noch viel weniger Grund sich an die Regulierungsbestrebungen zu halten.
I didn’t quite make myself clear. I’m sorry. What I was trying to say was that there are two types of citizens: the ‘model citizen’ you cited as an example, and those who wish to see treaties enacted and concluded—that is, citizens who are sensitive to the issue of digital sovereignty. The question is, given that these two groups coexist, which of them will be in the majority? I believe that citizens who are sensitive to digital sovereignty will form the majority. Wouldn’t most people object to their personal data being used freely and unconditionally by third parties without their knowledge? I believe it is a natural line of thinking to feel that one must be able to manage one’s own privacy. __On the other hand, there may be some who prioritise convenience and ‘entrust’ their privacy to platform operators. However, even those people would likely be particular about the extent and nature of the data they entrust. If a platform operator were to retain privacy data that they had not intended to entrust, I believe even those people would protest against the platform operator. __Finally, regarding the issue of ‘SIM farms’, it has been proven as a matter of fact that social media exerts a certain degree of influence on the formation of public opinion. SIM farms know no borders. They operate in regions where costs are low, and if costs rise in those regions, they simply move to another region where they can keep costs down. To neutralise their ‘work’, I believe that if we were to enact the treaty mentioned earlier and mandate that messages originating from non-signatory countries be clearly labelled as such, recipients would be able to recognise social media messages from those regions as ‘suspicious’ and remain vigilant. This, I believe, would make it less likely for the kind of abnormal trends we have seen in the past to occur.
言葉足らずでしたね。ごめんなさい。私が主張したかったのは、あなたが例として取り上げたモデル的な市民と、条約の制定と締結を望む市民ーデジタル主権について敏感な市民ーですね。この両者が混在する状態で、どちらの市民の方が多くなるのかということです。私は、デジタル主権に敏感な市民が多数を占めると考えています。ほとんどの人は、自分自身に知らされることなく、自分自身のデータを、第三者に無条件に自由に利用されることを拒絶するのではないでしょうか。自分自身のプラバイバシーは、自分自身で管理できなければならないと考えるのが、自然な思考過程ではないかと私は考えます。__一方、利便性を重視して、自分自身のプライバシーをプラットフォーマーに「預けてしまう」人もいるかもしれません。ただ、その人たちでも、預ける量と質には拘るのではないでしょうか。預けたつもりのないプライバシーを、プラットフォーマーが保持していたら、その人たちですらも、プラットフォーマーに抗議するのでないかと考えます。__最後に 、SIM FARM の問題についてですが、SNSが世論の形成に一定の影響力を持つことは事実として証明されてきました。SIM FARM には国境がありません。コストが低くなる地域で活動し、その地域でのコストが上昇したら、コストを抑えることのできる別の地域に移動してしまいます。彼らの「仕事」を無効化するためには、当初に挙げた条約を制定して、締結国以外からの発信を、受信者が分かるような表示を義務付けるようにすれば、その地域からのSNSのメッセージについては「怪しい」と受信者が警戒できるようになり、これまでのような異常なトレンドが発生しにくくなるのではないかと、私は考えます。
It is interesting to propose laws and regulations, but unfortunately – given both the time it takes to implement them and the scope for circumvention – it is pointless. It would be far better to focus on training, prevention and digital literacy. Schools, although lagging far behind and lacking in staff expertise, could be the key to fostering digital literacy.
Interessante proporre normative e regolamentazioni, ma purtroppo sia per i tempi di realizzazione che per le possibilità di aggiramento, inutile. Molto meglio lavorare su formazione, prevenzione, cultura digitale. La scuola, sebbene in enorme ritardo e povera di competenze del personale docente, potrebbe essere lo strumento per creare cultura digitale.
When we talk about social media, the first thing that springs to mind is the idea of SOCIAL CONNECTIVITY, THE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS, TO PUT THINGS INTO CONTEXT AND FIND WAYS FORWARD. As such, the Internet – or rather, social media platforms – can indeed tangibly strengthen DEMOCRACY. Its reach, as a mechanism, is immeasurable. However, what needs to be produced is content, after all, POLITICS must produce and structure PUBLIC POLICIES, focusing on the ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, EDUCATION AND THE ONGOING PROMOTION OF WELL-BEING, taking indicators into account.
Quando falamos em Rede Social, num primeiro momento vem à mente, a ideia de CONECTIVIDADE SOCIAL, ENCONTRO DE IDEIAS, PARA SE CONTEXTUALIZAR E SE ENCONTRAR CAMINHOS. Sendo assim, a Rede, as Redes podem sim potencializar com CONCRETUDE a DEMOCRACIA. O seu alcance é incomensurável, como mecanismo. No entanto, o que necessita ser produzido, são conteúdos, afinal a POLÍTICA deve produzir e estruturar POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS, com foco no MEIO AMBIENTE, SAÚDE, EDUCAÇÃO E PROMOÇÃO PERMANENTE DO BRM ESTAR, considerando indicadores.
Social media is nothing more than a tool for manipulating and influencing people. However, anyone who still believes we live in a democracy is beyond help. The strings are being pulled from somewhere else entirely.
Die sozialen Medien sind nichts weiter als ein Tool, um die Menschen zu lenken und zu beinflussen. Wer allerdings noch glaubt, dass wir in einer Demokratie leben, dem ist nicht mehr zu helfen. Die Fäden werden ganz wo anders gezogen.
They are referring to Switzerland and assume that we do not live in a democracy
Sie beziehen sich auf die Schweiz und gehen davon aus, dass wir nicht in einer Demokratie leben
Doom-mongering and conspiracy theories? No. Yes, if we’re dealing with people who lack education, the ability to make choices, and a sense of responsibility. We live in a democracy. It has its flaws, but it’s still a democracy – at least in Switzerland.
Catastrofismo e complottismo? No. Sì se abbiamo a che fare con persone senza cultura, senza capacità di scelta, senza senso di responsabilità. Viviamo in una democrazia. Con difetti, ma pur sempre democrazia, almeno in Svizzera.
After reading Douglas Murray’s *The Strange Death of Europe*, I felt that Switzerland had not yet become like its northern neighbour. There is still time. We must take decisive action.
ダグラス・マレーの"The Strange Death of Europe"を読んだ後スイスはまだ北方の隣国のようにはなっていないと思った。まだ間に合う。英断を下すべきだ。
Hello, thank you very much for your contribution. What do you mean by that?
Guten Tag, vielen Dank für Ihren Beitrag. Wie meinen Sie das
Speaking of bias in media. We hear so often of the evil Russians that it feels as if it's being crammed up our rears. Never does the press seem to mention NATO expansionism...which went against what the US=NATO promised. The US and NATO have been placing missiles systems closer and closer to Russian borders throughout the decades. How long should the Russians sit there waiting for NATO to invade? Remember the Cuban missile crisis? Western media often likes to pretend it was started by russia while ignoring the cause was US missiles in Turkey. 15-20 years ago the US bribed Czech politicians to put US missile systems in *against demand of Czech citizens). Also media seem to never mention that the west backed a bloody Coupe in Ukraine against the elected pro Russian government . And 'regime change" has been the US/Nato play quite often, right? Kidnapping a country's leader/murdering them, and then placing in a bought off leader. Would it be miore acceptable if Russia went in, took Zelinsky, and put in a bought off Russian puppet?____But we get the same with china. NATO countries have put their navies on the chinese shoreline as intimidated provocation...and of course shoukd something happen western media will report it as chinese aggression. ____So... how is it that social media is more of a threat than the lies, omissions, and biases of traditional media that we are lead to believe are "honest" and/or "official"
Gerne weise ich Sie darauhin, dass es in der Ukraine zu keinem Putsch gekommen ist. Die meisten Toten im Rahmen der Maidan-Proteste waren normale Bürgerinnen und Bürger, die Sicherheitsbehörden zum Opfer gefallen sind. ____Hier im folgenden einige Schilderungen des UNO-Menschenrechtskommissariats in einem Report, der die Zeit von 2014 bis Mai 2016 umfasst: ____Since its deployment on 14 March 20141__, the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring__Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU) has been gathering substantial information related to the__arbitrary deprivation of life, one of the gravest human rights violations, notably during__assemblies, in 2014 and 2015, as well as in the eastern areas affected by the ongoing__conflict.__ Violence during the Maidan protests in Kyiv and some other cities (November 2013 –__February 2014) resulted in the death of 108 protestors and other individuals2__and 13 law__enforcement officers. On 26 February 2014, two people died as result of clashes in the city of__Simferopol, Autonomous Republic of Crimea. On 14 March 2014, two people were killed__during clashes between ‘pro-unity’ and ‘pro-federalism’ supporters in Kharkiv. In Odesa,__48 people were deprived of their lives in the violence of 2 May 2014. On 22 February 2015,__four people were killed by a blast during the ‘March of Dignity’ in Kharkiv. On 31 August__2015, four law enforcement officers were killed during protests near the Parliament__building in Kyiv.____ The armed conflict in certain districts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, which has__been ongoing since mid-April 2014 and which is fuelled by the inflow of foreign fighters__and weapons from the Russian Federation, including former servicemen and servicemen on__leave, accounts for the majority of violations of the right to life in Ukraine over the last two__years. OHCHR estimates that between mid-April 2014 and 31 May 2016, at least 9,404__people, of which up to 2,000 are civilians, have been killed as a result of the conflict. The__vast majority of civilian casualties, recorded on the territories controlled by the Government__of Ukraine and on those controlled by armed groups, were caused by the indiscriminate__shelling of residential areas, in violation of the international humanitarian law principle of__distinction.__ OHCHR recorded executions of members of Ukrainian forces and elements of armed__groups who had surrendered, or were otherwise hors de combat. These took place mainly in__2014 and during the first half of 2015. OHCHR also recorded a considerable number of__alleged summary executions and killings of civilians who were not taking part in hostilities;__for the most part in 2014 and in early 2015. In some cases, because of the prevailing__insecurity, it was difficult to ascertain the cause of the killing.__ OHCHR was able to establish incidents of arbitrary killings allegedly committed by__armed groups, either under effective control of the self-proclaimed ‘Donetsk people’s__republic’__3__or the self-proclaimed ‘Luhansk people’s republic’4__, or by those which acted independently (such as Cossack groups). In some cases, presented in this report, members of the following armed groups were allegedly involved: ‘Brianka SSSR’, ‘International__Piatnashki battalion’, ‘Kerch’, ‘Odessa’, ‘Rus’, ‘Somali’, ‘Sparta’, ‘Vostok’ and ‘Zaria’.__ OHCHR also found acts of arbitrary deprivation of life allegedly committed by__elements of Ukrainian armed forces and law enforcement. In some cases, described in this report, the servicemen of the following units were allegedly involved: ‘Aidar’, ‘Azov’,__‘Dnipro-1’, DUK, ‘Harpun’, ‘Kyiv-2’, ‘Shakhtarsk’ (‘Tornado)’, 25th Separate Airborne__Brigade, and the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU).__ In a number of cases, the alleged perpetrators could not be identified by the victims__and witnesses, and their affiliation with a specific armed group or a unit of Government__forces cannot therefore be sufficiently established. There are cases where the alleged__perpetrators, despite their formal affiliation with a certain group or unit, may have acted on__their own initiative or upon instruction, possibly of a supervisor, but this is hard to prove.__OHCHR suggests, however, that all killings in the context of the armed conflict in eastern__Ukraine described in the report were carried out by, at the behest of, or with the__acquiescence of members of the armed groups or elements of Ukrainian military or law__enforcement. OHCHR also considers that some of the executions or killings would not have__occurred had those bearing command responsibility not failed to prevent them. ____There has been no accountability for the vast majority of alleged summary executions__and killings committed in the conflict zone. OHCHR welcomes the efforts of the Government__of Ukraine to investigate some incidents, and notes that a number of perpetrators have been__brought to justice. At the same time, OHCHR is concerned that in many cases, investigations__and prosecution have been protracted, often reportedly due to the lack of evidence. It is__therefore critical that forensic and other evidence related to such summary executions and__killings is properly collected and preserved, notably mortal remains must be recovered in__the conflict area and DNA samples collected. At all times, family members should be kept__informed of the loss of their loved one.__ Parallel ‘law enforcement’ entities set up in the ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and__‘Luhansk people’s republic’ have reportedly ‘investigated’ some selected killings. These__have focused mainly on acts committed by armed groups which have been disbanded or__otherwise re-organized for their alleged lack of discipline or loyalty.__ OHCHR considers that in devising an approach to implement the Minsk Agreements,__it is essential for the Government of Ukraine to send a strong and consistent message to all__those responsible for gross violations of human rights, some of which may amount to war__crimes and/or crimes against humanity, that there will be no amnesty and that they will be__held fully accountable for their acts.__ In the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, the status of which__is determined by the United Nations General Assembly resolution 68/262 on the territorial__integrity of Ukraine, OHCHR recorded at least one alleged summary execution and ten__cases of alleged disappearances, which may have resulted in deaths. These allegations are__based on witness accounts, the profile of the disappeared and the fact that some__disappearances appear to have resulted from abductions involving paramilitary groups often__associated with the so-called Crimean ‘self-defence’. The cases need to be properly__investigated and perpetrators brought to justice.__ In light of the pervasive impunity, it is critical to mobilize the national and__international criminal justice systems, especially in the context of the armed conflict in__certain districts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. OHCHR views this report as a tool to__encourage and support investigations and prosecutions of killings, and to ensure that those__responsible are held accountable.
What is it that is so offensive? A naughty word? Or that some of these politicians are getting called out for corruption, misbehavior,, incompetence, and failed policy? One should not use naughty words for those that have caused harm? ____"He said I was supporting a country that kills babies and hides child rapists"....should hardly an insult if they're actually supporting a country that targets children and hides child rapists....____I would think using a naughty word for someone supporting a country targeting children and hiding child rapists quite reasonable myself.
Recently a traditional media outlet in the UK was purchased by a foreign owner. This owner told its journalists that they must support a country that has been committing atrocities for decades upon decades. This same traditional media outlet will publish lists of Uzk politicians they support. The bias is quite obvious and not at all better than what is found on social media. A foreign owned traditional media entity recommendeding politicians is no different than a foreign owned social media post recommending politicians...both are interfering...yet one is normalized, often accepted, ____The US recently approved a $2 billion anti china propaganda budget to be used to influence overseas traditional media outlets. Without financial disclosures the public is clueless as to which media outlets have sold out to the highest bidder....and if they're takingvsoecial interest funds from the highest bidder, how can there be any trust as to fair and honest reporting from traditional media outlets
The fundamental difference between social media and journalism is that journalists are committed to ethical professional standards against which their work and publications can be measured – and, where appropriate, criticised. ____However, I would also like to point out that it is not just media organisations that form part of a democracy, but all citizens. Digital violence and propaganda on social media (which, of course, also originates from countries such as the USA) reaches everyone and does not only affect media organisations.
Der grundlegende Unterschied zwischen den Sozialen Medien und Journalismus ist, dass Journalistinnen und Journalisten sich ethischen Handwerksprinzipien verpflichtet haben, an denen man ihre Tätigkeit und ihre Publikationen messen - und sie gegebenenfalls auch kritisieren kann. ____Gerne weise ich Sie aber auch daraufhin, dass nicht bloss Medienunternehmen Teil einer Demokratie sind, sondern alle Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Die digitale Gewalt und Propaganda auf den Sozialen Medien (,die natürlich auch von Ländern wie den USA ausgeht,) erreicht ja alle Menschen und betrifft nicht nur Medienunternehmen.
Oh no....are people being mean to corrupt politicians on the internet? Ive messaged several politicians as to their supporting a country that hides child rapists...none of them seemed bothered enough to respond. Am I supposed to accept child rape in order to avoid offending a politician that most likely pays no attention to social media posts anyways
I would like to point out that it is not just politicians who are part of democracy, but all citizens.
Gerne weise ich Sie daraufhin, dass nicht bloss Politikerinnen und Politiker Teil der Demokratie sind, sondern alle Bürgerinnen und Bürger.
I am more concerned with the lies and propaganda from traditional media than I am as to social media. Is it any more taxing to double check what a socisl media outlet posts versus having to do so with the traditional press? It's quite easy to see the biases in the US and European press. Many traditional media outlets are little more than paid propganda outlets that claim to be "fair and unbiased" while pushing the agenda of their owners and financiers. Id be more apt to believe a post from chinese state media than I would something coming from fox news or the BBC nowadays ____Israeli lobby groups just spent $35 million influencing a single US primary election. Is this traditional method of corrupting elections more acceptable than a Russian influencer claiming preference for one Romanian candidate over another
Thank you for your contribution. As you are no doubt aware, you are conflating many different issues and situations across different countries. Romania has very strict laws regarding election campaign financing, as you can read here: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/information-wars/what-romanias-election-turmoil-reveals-about-tiktoks-political-influence/91200280____Your trust in Chinese state media actually suggests that you are not particularly well disposed towards free media in general – which explains your first question as to why dealing with social media is more complicated than dealing with the traditional press: If free discourse is not a right or a goal, but censorship and blocking are simply accepted, then dealing with social media would indeed not be a new challenge.
Danke für Ihren Beitrag. Wie Ihnen sicher bewusst ist, vermischen Sie viele Themen und Situationen in Ländern. Rumänien hat sehr strikte Gesetze bezüglich der Wahlkampffinanzierung, wie Sie hier nachlesen können: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/information-wars/what-romanias-election-turmoil-reveals-about-tiktoks-political-influence/91200280____Ihr Vertrauen in chinesische Staatsmedien zeugt ja eher davon, dass Sie freien Medien generell nicht besonders zugewandt gegenüberstehen - entsprechend klärt sich Ihre erste Frage dazu, warum der Umgang mit den sozialen Medien komplizierter ist als im Bezug auf die traditionelle Presse: Wenn der freie Diskurs nicht Anspruch und Ziel ist, sondern Zensur und Blocks hingenommen werden, dann wäre der Umgang mit sozialen Medien tatsächlich keine neue Herausforderung.
Man, I'm really worried
alter mach mir fett sorge
What, specifically, worries you the most?
Was macht dr konkret am meischte Sorge
Social media acts as an amplifier of its users’ socio-political maturity: if society is educated and well-prepared, social media amplifies democracy and constructive debate; conversely, if society is vulnerable, poorly educated and manipulated by demagogic politicians, social media amplifies manipulation, polarisation and hatred. Therefore, before we continue to pin all our hopes on these platforms as a democratic solution, the absolute priority must be to defend and advance the political education of the public. Without the critical tools to discern the truth and understand the context, social media will never lead us to a more direct democracy, but rather to more efficient demagoguery. In Switzerland, given its extensive experience with direct democracy, there is hope in the use of social media, but if we look at the situation in the US, for example, what is happening is worrying. I cannot imagine what politicians are doing with the cognitive manipulation of social media in emerging countries with very low levels of education. A hundred years ago, the Nazis, using only radio and print media, managed to create the conditions for the Second World War. Today, with a smartphone in every pocket and the power of algorithms, we are faced with a great opportunity and perhaps a very great threat to the world. As always, everything depends on how we use these means of communication and to whom we give the power to exploit them.
Las redes sociales son un amplificador de la madurez sociopolitica de sus utilizadores: si la sociedad está educada y preparada, las reden amplifican la democracia y el debate constructivo; de locontrario si la sociedad es vulnerable, poco educada y es manejada con demagogía por sus politicos, las redes amplifican la manipulación, la polarización y el odio. Por tanto, antes de seguir depositando todas nuestras esperanzas en estas plataformas como solución democrática, la prioridad absoluta debe ser defender y hacer progresar la educación política de la ciudadanía. Sin herramientas críticas para discernir la verdad y entender el contexto, las redes nunca nos llevarán a una democracia más directa, sino a una demagogia más eficiente. En Suiza por su extensa experiencia con la democracia directa hay esperanza en el uso de las redes pero si vemos la situación de US por ejemplo es preocupante lo que sucede. No imagino lo que hacen los politicos con la manipulacion cognitiva de las redes en paises emergentes y de muy bajo nivel de formación. Hace 100 año el NS solo com radio y con medios impresos logro armar las condiciones para le segunda guerra mundial. Hoy con el telefono inteligente en cada bolsillo y el poder de los algoritmos se presenta ante nosotros una gran oportunidad y quizas una muy grande amenaza para el mundo. Como siempre, todo depende de como utilicemos estos medios de comunicación y a quien le demos el poder de su explotación.
Thank you very much for sharing your concerns and a glimmer of hope; combining the two in the same post is a challenge, but it is also likely to be more constructive. Indeed, improving media literacy is a cause that is gaining momentum in many quarters – not only in relation to political education in schools, but also for people of all ages.
Vielen Dank für das Schildern Ihrer Sorge und einer Prise Hoffnung, die Kombination von beidem im selben Beitrag ist eine Herausforderung, aber wohl auch konstruktiver. Tatsächlich ist die Stärkung der Medienkompetenz ein Anliegen, das vielerorts Aufwind hat - nicht nur im Bezug auf die politische Bildung an Schulen, sondern auch für Menschen allen Lebensalters.
Personally, I believe that the internet is a medium with great potential for informing people and fostering critical thinking, enabling them to make informed and conscious decisions; however, I must admit that in my country, Mexico, I have observed a particular tendency for the media and social networks to be used to promote the ruling party. I am not concerned that people have a greater ability to communicate and share their ideas by creating communities or support groups for a party or a cause, but I am concerned that in my country, given its context, this has facilitated the creation of this type of social structure of political thought/support/backing based on nothing more than propaganda, and this happens in many countries, but in Mexico it has a particular impact; the majority of the population came from a context of poverty characterised by poor education and a culture that is relatively anti-intellectual and more populist. This culture has adapted to the digital age and, in one way or another, we have been affected by it. Unfortunately, some parties, media figures and programmes have seen the potential to make money by creating ‘analysis’ ‘information’ and ‘news’ which, in the end, does nothing more than repeat the party’s propaganda, and people do not question it at the most basic level. The result is that today most people already perceive the country’s ills as acceptable or normalise them, partly so as not to confront the uncomfortable thoughts that arise from accepting that a leader can do ‘good’ such as providing social welfare programmes to a large part of the population whilst simultaneously perpetuating the dire situation by collaborating with and implementing policies that facilitate the drug trade, ignoring the impact on society. in Mexico nobody talks about the disappeared, and when someone does, the majority of people who support the party simply say that this has always happened, that it is an exaggeration by the opposition, or even seek to justify it with the government’s typical argument: ‘they were surely up to no good’. This worries me; I see a great deal of insensitivity and a lack of critical thinking in people; few people want to acknowledge the problem we face, This is very serious. We have figures that border on civil war levels. However, the misuse of the internet over the years to spread propaganda, misinform and distort the truth in favour of the government’s narrative has had a negative impact on my country, especially on those who, due to the conditions of the system, have been deprived of the opportunity to develop the essential skills needed to engage effectively and meaningfully, rather than merely through patronage as is customary. I am worried.
Personalmente creo que el internet es un medio con mucho potencial para informar y reforzar el pensamiento crítico en las personas para que tomen decisiones informas y conscientes, sin embargo debo admitir que en mi país, México, he visto un especial uso de los medios y las redes para hacer propaganda a favor del partido de mayoría absoluta. No me preocupa que la gente tenga más capacidad de comunicarse y compartir sus ideas creando comunidades o bloques de apoyo hacia un partido o una causa, pero me preocupa que en mi país, con su contexto esto ha facilitado la creación de este tipo de estructuras sociales de pensamiento/apoyo/respaldo político sustentado especialmente en nada más que propaganda, y esto pasa en muchos países, pero en México tiene un impacto especial, la mayoria de la población venía de un contexto de pobreza caracterizado por educación deficiente y una cultura relativamente Anti intelectual y más de populismo, está cultura que se ha adaptado a la era digital y de una u otra forma nos hemos visto impactados por ella lamentablemente algunos partidos, comunicadores y programas han visto el potencial para ganar dinero creando contenido de "análisis" "información" "noticias" que al final no hace más que repetir la propaganda del partido y la gente no lo cuestiona en lo más básico, el resultado es que hoy en día la mayoria de la gente ya percibe los males del país como aceptables o los normaliza en parte para no confrontar los pensamientos de incomodidad que produce aceptar que un lider puede hacer cosas "buenas" por ti como dar programas de ayuda social a gran parte de la población y a la vez perpetuar la mala situación colaborando e impememtando políticas que facilitan la operación del narco, omitiendo el impacto en la sociedad, en México nadie habla de desaparecidos y cuando alguien lo hace la gente en su mayoría a favor del partido se limitan a decir que eso siempre ha pasado, que es una exageración de la oposición, o incluso buscan justificar con el típico argumento del gobierno "es que de seguro andaban en la maña" esto me preocupa, veo mucha insensibilidad y falta de pensamiento critico en las personas, pocas personas quieren reconocer la problemática que afrontamos, esto es muy grave, tenemos cifras que rozan la guerra civil, sin embargo el mal uso del internet por años para hacer propaganda, desinformar y tergiversar a favor de la narrativa oficialista ha tenido un impacto negativo en mi país, especialmente en esos que por las condiciones del sistema se han visto privados de desarrollar capacidades escenciales para involucrarse de forma eficiente y real y no solo por clientelismo como se acostumbra. Estoy preocupado.
Thank you very much for this nuanced and compelling account!
Vielen Dank für diese differenzierte und eindrückliche Schilderung!
One possible reason for the landslide victory of the Liberal Democratic Party, led by Ms Takaichi, in the House of Representatives election held in Japan in February is the use of social media to encourage young people to vote. As an elderly person who rarely uses social media, I am unable to judge whether the content posted there is good or bad; however, given that its influence on elections is so significant, I believe measures such as banning election-related social media posts during the campaign period are necessary.
日本で2月に行われた衆議院選挙で高市氏の率いる自民党が大勝した理由として、SNSによる若者への投票勧誘が考えられます。SNSをほとんど使わない老人としては、SNSで発信された内容の良い悪いの判断は出来ないですが、選挙への影響がここまで大きいとなると、選挙期間中は選挙関係のSNS投稿を禁止するなどの措置が必要になると思います。
Hello, thank you very much for your opinion. I assume, therefore, that you are critical of Ms Takaichi
Guten Tag, vielen Dank für Ihre Meinung. Ich nehme entsprechend an, dass Sie Frau Takaichi kritisch gegenüberstehen
What is the alternative? Is it to return to the past century, when a few politically motivated media tycoons controlled all the information reaching voters? Back to the time when all major media outlets repeated false claims like 'there were WMD in Iraq'? While social media certainly have biases, they represent an important addition to democracy.
Thank you very much for your comment. You are, of course, right that there is no going back when it comes to technology and social infrastructure. However, anyone who is concerned and dissatisfied with the current situation can, for example, advocate for or speak out in favour of alternative, differently structured social media platforms.
Vielen Dank für Ihren Kommentar. Sie haben natürlich recht, dass es kein Zurück im Bezug auf die Technologie und die gesellschaftliche Infrastruktur gibt. Doch, wer sich Sorgen macht und mit der Ist-Situation unzufrieden ist, kann sich bspw. für andere, anders strukturierte Soziale Medien einsetzen oder aussprechen
I think educating the public about social media is important. Also, different and alternative social media platforms are a good idea. There is no need why the whole world should be a subject of Facebook algorithm of prioritizing messages on top.
Select topics that interest you.
Something went wrong. Please try again.
Join the conversation!