Disinformation in Czechia continues to threaten democracy
Disinformation in Czechia has shifted significantly over the last few years. As a result, efforts to counter disinformation are increasingly focusing on targeting its financial backers rather than merely educating the population. I spoke with Project Manager and analyst for the Regional Security Program at Prague Security Studies Institute (PSSI), Kristina Šefčíková, to touch on where the information landscape has changed and what disinformation researchers are doing differently to combat disinformation.
So, how would you describe the current state of disinformation in Czechia, and particularly I'm interested if there's been a change in the information landscape since the pandemic in 2020, or even with Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022?
“This whole landscape has changed a lot in the past few years because it is actually a very adaptable landscape. These people are always ready to jump on anything that is happening, any narrative, but also any format that is currently popular.
“So, the main change that we have seen is that this whole landscape used to be quite non-transparent and anonymous, mostly consisting of some websites and blogs, but because of the pandemic and also during the [Russo-Ukrainian] war, these people have become much more public, and essentially they have adapted the model of an influencer. Sometimes I call them ‘disinformation influencers.’
“They are now really like public faces that rely on this very familiar communication with their audience. Similarly, they also like to monetize what they do, as much as possible. They rely a lot on the monetization of content, advertising, but also crowdfunding. So, there has also been this development in how they operate and fund their activities. It seems that money has become a big motivation for them. This has probably been the biggest change.
“You know, the narratives are always changing, although the big motives, I would say, still stay the same because they are still effective, but the way it demonstrates changes also, of course, they've gotten more into video format, live streaming, and this sort of stuff because it is simply what works on today's audiences.”
Since they're influencers, they're probably connected a lot to social media channels and things like this, and I know that you were doing work on this, what social media channels allow disinformers to post and so forth. So, can we look at what are the main sources of disinformation, what channels are kind of showing up?
“Facebook is still the biggest platform because it is simply still the most used one by Czechs in general. So, it is also an effective medium for disinformation. But it is true that since Facebook or Meta are taking at least some steps towards content regulation, these people are more likely to get disinformation.
“So, I think, people that spread disinformation, of course, perceive these changes, and they have started to say that maybe Facebook is getting too regulated for their liking. So, they have started to migrate to other platforms.
“A very specific case is Telegram, because there is almost no regulation, and this has really become a hotbed for more radicalized communities. It is still pretty much anonymous, and it is a big channel for Russian propaganda, specifically.
“But as I've said, because a lot of these people are essentially influencers now, they also rely a lot on video format. So, you can find more and more disinformation channels on YouTube, for example, and also on TikTok. They have really spread out over all these available media platforms.
And what is social media's role there, would you say? Are they trying to limit that? You mentioned that they're noticing that some of these platforms are limiting their reach or something, but in some cases, it's not happening.
That is probably connected also to the question of how you define disinformation. Because a lot of these people will say that concerns around vaccines are not actually disinformation. So let's maybe turn to that briefly. How would we define disinformation, then let’s look at some of the actual steps that are being taken against it.
“Yes, that is the million-dollar question, and the platforms are being really careful in this regard because, of course, we still have to safeguard freedom of speech.
“So, what the platforms usually do is they stick to some more certain topics, as in they regulate hate speech, some extremist attitudes. Actually, health has been one of the topics that has become more regulated because there is at least some consensus, scientific consensus, on what actually is true and what is not.
“But that is probably the only topic where that happens, and this is exactly what we usually discuss when it comes to propaganda from authoritarian states, that it really is really hard to define it, and it is hard to know whether it is being spread intentionally or not.
“So I don't think there will be some huge steps in the upcoming future regarding this. But as a lot of people may know, the European Union is trying to take some steps with the Digital Services Act and other related legislation, which at least requires these platforms to be more transparent, to allow researchers and journalists to have access to data, so at least they can do something.
“This legislation requires the platforms to report on how much they are doing against disinformation, propaganda, etc. So they are required to publish some reports.
“From these reports, we can see that there actually isn't a lot being done, especially in the V4 region. And it seems that when it comes to regulation, these platforms really do struggle with Slavic languages, so a similar situation is, for example, in the Western Balkans.
In a recent talk PSSI (Prague Security Studies Institute) was giving, in a workshop, you guys mentioned that another way to alleviate the disinformation is to target those who are financing it, or to go at their base because it's so monetized and they're making so much money off of it. This is something figures like Alex Jones in the US figured out very quickly.
You mentioned that going after the financiers, the ads, is a good method. But then you had some issues. There was kind of an ambivalence or an indignance, even, to some of those concerns from the advertisers. Could you speak to that briefly?
“Yes, so just to explain what we have noticed when we've been monitoring the online space is that you still have a lot of these websites that spread disinformation and are a lot of the time, the originators of them and then they are amplified through social media.
“These websites have quite the usual monetization model. So there is advertising on these websites and they receive revenue from them. But mostly it is advertising that is put there through some automatized system. So essentially, the specific brands that appear there usually do not realize that they are appearing next to conspiracy theories about 5G or any other conspiracy you can think of.
“So what we've been doing with my organization is approaching these advertisers, showing them what the issue is, that their ads are appearing in a very negative context. And what we also try to communicate to them is that they actually have control over the situation and they have some very easy tools at hand that can help them keep their brand safe.
“And the feedback actually was that most of the time these advertisers, or more specifically the people that are in charge of digital advertising, either did not realize that this could happen or they didn't have much awareness over their options to control this.
“But a lot of them also admit that they simply do not feel confident in navigating the online space and they are not really able to tell apart what is a good quality source and what is a problematic source.
“So, we can see that media literacy is still the big overall problem. To summarize, the response we got was mostly positive. It's not that these advertisers do not care, but it's mostly about the lack of knowledge of what is actually happening.”
And in some cases, it might be easy to see, we're touching on this briefly before, like with RT, formerly Russia Today, that they're publishing a mixture of misinformation and disinformation along with some verifiable news.
That's one of the misconceptions about disinformation, that it tends to be mixed in with some objectively true information as well. As a result, at times people say “Oh, look, well, the news source is mostly correct, maybe we disagree about some of the details,” or something along those lines.
But for those advertisers, is that a valid concern for them where they can't really verify what is being said? So, what are the clear cases of disinformation, what are the less clear cases?
“So actually the case is that a lot of these advertisers simply prefer to avoid political content altogether or, for example, anything connected to negative things like war, etc. so they like to avoid content about the war in Ukraine even if it's completely true and fact-checked and everything.
“So what we have found the most effective way was actually to provide them with a list of online media that we don't recommend for them to advertise on because it can damage their brand so what they can do is essentially just blacklist these media.
“Because, as I've said, they do not feel like they know the landscape very well they also usually find this option to be the easiest one to implement uh but yeah that is the thing that one category is, those more clear cases like hate speech and extremist attitudes. But then you get into this grey zone and sometimes it can just depend on the individual advertisers where they draw the line or what they perceive as damaging to their brand and what they find still okay. So it's a lot about these individual conversations with them.”
And then you briefly mentioned media literacy as well, so what is Czechia actually doing in comparison with some countries like Finland that have really good index scores on media literacy?
“So, I think the strength of Czechia is that there is a very active and vibrant civil society which is running a lot of activities connected to media literacy. The case is that a lot of the time civil society is complementing what the government should be doing but maybe it's not because of media literacy it's not because of media literacy it's not because of lack of resources or personnel. So, the civil society I think is doing a great job in building these capacities among young people but also among seniors.
“Then the overall big issue is that media literacy so far has not been very prioritized in the national curricula so that is something that needs to be updated to make it more accessible across the country.
“But what I see as a gap that is still missing in all of these activities is that a lot of these workshops and educational activities focus either on young people or seniors, but the people in between are often neglected. Let's say people in the productive age.
“I think this is a challenge that we all need to tackle in the future, in the sense of how to approach this group of people in a way that is also interesting to them and do activities that are specifically focused on this age group.
“I think there is this misconception that people who are prone to believe in disinformation are either older or less educated, but many sociological researchers have proven that that is not the case, and it is not that simple. So we cannot really categorize people in this way. And that is also why media literacy has to have this wider outreach.”
And speaking about the role that civil society plays, such as Prague Security Studies Institute, what are some of the things that you're prioritizing in the coming years? Would it be interesting to talk about the work that you're currently doing in small cities, and what are some other strategies or things on the horizon?
“So, organizations such as ours, firstly, do try to help other stakeholders by providing data and research. So any practical activities that are being created are actually based on some proper research first.
“Then, yes, definitely, we want to focus more on these neglected target groups. And, you know, as I said in the beginning, disinformation actors are very important. They are also flexible, and very creative. And essentially that is also what we need to do. To create this interesting, entertaining format to just become more attractive to people who maybe need some help with media literacy, with navigating the information space.
“So, I think today it is a lot about keeping up with the trends and just providing content that is really engaging.
“There's also been some polls about this and people are very clear about the fact that when they are consuming news or any kind of information, they expect it to be not only factually correct but also somehow fun, entertaining.
“So this has become some kind of a standard today.”
