Technology and democracy: a paradox wrapped in a contradiction inside an irony

Democracy is in retreat around the globe. Many commentators have blamed the Internet for this development, whereas others have celebrated the Internet as a tool for liberation, with each opinion being buttressed by supporting evidence. We try to resolve this paradox by reviewing some of the pressure points that arise between human cognition and the online information architecture, and their fallout for the well-being of democracy. We focus on the role of the attention economy, which has monetised dwell time on platforms, and the role of algorithms that satisfy users’ presumed preferences. We further note the inherent asymmetry in power between platforms and users that arises from these pressure points, and we conclude by sketching out the principles of a new Internet with democratic credentials

A new policy paradigm from the LSE Maryam Forum: 5. treat disinformation as a systemic risk to democracy

Disinformation has polarised democratic societies and threatens to make common, evidence-based debate impossible. Peter Pomerantsev (LSE and Johns Hopkins), Piroska Nagy-Mohácsi (LSE), Ben Grazda (LSE) and the LSE Maryam Forum Democracy and Disinformation Working Group suggest how to turn the tide. In the past, non-democracies were defined by censorship and control over media, while democracies guaranteed freedom ... Continue

Zwischen alter und neuer Weltordnung: die Logik der Russischen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik

Politische Entscheidungen im System von Präsident Wladimir Putin folgen einer militärisch-technischen Logik und militärische Stärke ist ein Hauptinstrument russischer Außenpolitik. Die Modernisierung des nuklearen Potentials wird als Faustpfand in der Abschreckung vor allem gegenüber den USA gesehen, das Russland zugleich auf Augenhöhe mit dem Gegner bringt. Ebenso legitim ist für den Kreml die hybride Kriegsführung mit Desinformation, Cyber-Angriffen, Fake-News und von Russland gesteuerten Auslandsmedien

Measuring social response to different journalistic techniques on Facebook

Recent studies have shown that online users tend to select information that adheres to their system of beliefs, ignore information that does not, and join groups that share a common narrative. This information environment can elicit tribalism instead of informed debate, especially when issues are controversial. Algorithmic solutions, fact-checking initiatives, and many other approaches have shown limitations in dealing with this phenomenon, and heated debate and polarization still play a pivotal role in online social dynamics (e.g. traditional vs. anti-establishment polarization). To understand the effect of different communication strategies able to smooth polarization, in this paper, together with Corriere della Sera, a major Italian news outlet, we measure the social response of users to different types of news framing. We analyse users’ reactions to 113 ad-hoc articles published on the newspaper’s Facebook page and the corresponding news articles on the topic of migration, published from March to December 2018. We examine different journalistic techniques and content types by analyzing their impact on user comments in terms of toxicity, criticism of the newspaper, and stance concerning migration. We find that visual pieces and factual news reports elicit the highest level of trust in the media source, while opinion pieces and editorials are more likely to be criticized. We also notice that data-driven pieces elicit an extremely low level of trust in the news source. Furthermore, coherently with the echo chambers behaviour, we find social conformity strongly affecting the commenting behaviour of users on Facebook

Nothing Is True? The Credibility of News and Conflicting Narratives during “Information War” in Ukraine

In international politics, the strategic narratives of different governments compete for public attention and support. The Russian government’s narrative has prompted western concern due to fears that it exerts a destabilizing effect on societies in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. However, the behavior and thought processes of news consumers targeted by contradictory strategic narratives are rarely subjected to analysis. This paper examines how Ukrainian news consumers decide where to get their news and what to believe in a media environment where “propaganda” and “disinformation” are regarded as major threats to national security. Evidence comes from thirty audio-diaries and in-depth interviews conducted in 2016 among adult residents of Odesa Region. Through qualitative analysis of the diary and interview transcripts, the paper reveals how participants judged the credibility of news and narratives based on their priorities (what they considered important), not just “facts” (what they believed had happened). The attribution of importance to different foreign policy issues was associated, in turn, with varying personal experiences, memories, and individual cross-border relationships

The menace of unreality: how the Kremlin weaponizes information, culture and money

"A Special Report presented by The Interpreter, a project of the Institute of Modern Russia"--Cover. Includes bibliographical references. | Introduction -- Executive summary -- Background -- The Kremlin tool kit -- The new, non-linear internationale -- Ukraine and the advent of non-linear war -- Responses to 21st-century challenges -- Recommendations. | In the twenty-first century, information warfare has become the world's primary form of warfare, and effective countermeasures have yet to be developed. The report aims to help members of governments, civil society, and the media understand how the Kremlin's propaganda machine works and the challenges it presents to the West. It also provides a set of recommendations for how best to confront these challenges

Donetsk don’t tell – ‘hybrid war’ in Ukraine and the limits of social media influence operations

The limits of social media influence operations are investigated in this Journal of Information Technology & Politics Article written by CSS’ Lennart Maschmeyer. In collaboration with Alexei Abrahams, Peter Pomerantsev, and Volodymyr Yermolenko, he challenges the widely shared belief of social media enabling more potent influence operations than traditional mass media. By focusing on influence operations targeted at Ukraine, a theoretical framework is developed, showing how and why decentralized and centralized media both offer respective opportunities and challenges for conducting influence operations. Tested against the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, the paper does not dismiss the potential effectiveness of social media in spreading disinformation, but rather reminds to not overestimate the threat. In fact, it is an ample reminder of the overall limitations of influence operations.Die Grenzen der Einflussnahme durch soziale Medien werden in diesem Artikel des Journal of Information Technology & Politics von CSS Forscher Lennart Maschmeyer untersucht. In Zusammenarbeit mit Alexei Abrahams, Peter Pomerantsev und Volodymyr Yermolenko stellt er die weit verbreitete Annahme in Frage, dass soziale Medien wirksamere Einflussnahmen ermöglichen als traditionelle Massenmedien. Anhand der auf die Ukraine ausgerichteten Einflussoperationen wird ein theoretischer Rahmen entwickelt, der zeigt, wie und warum dezentrale und zentrale Medien Chancen und Herausforderungen für die Durchführung von Einflussoperationen bieten. Dabei wird anhand des russisch-ukrainischen Konflikts die potenzielle Wirksamkeit sozialer Medien bei der Verbreitung von Desinformationen nicht in Abrede gestellt, sondern darauf hingewiesen, dass die Gefahr nicht überschätzt werden sollte. Vielmehr pointiert der Artikel die allgemeinen Grenzen von Einflussoperationen.ISSN:1933-169XISSN:1933-168