Faced with Russian propaganda, more than censoring, limiting or punishing, the public authorities can do more to promote the independence and transparency of information, particularly that which is in their hands, such as that of the public media.
US files lawsuit against Russian attempts to influence presidential election in Trump’s favor
Ten years ago, on stage at the University of Texas at Austin’s annual digital journalism meeting, a producer from Vice Media, then a news outlet that was challenging traditional media with its most aggressive coverage aimed at young audiences, taught us how to use drones, Google Glasses, and live-streaming tools to cover the Occupy Wall Street protests. His name was Tim Pool, and he introduced himself as “the gadget guy” who would explain the benefits of technology to journalists from more traditional media outlets.
Now, Tim Pool is one of the “content creators” or influencers -I don’t know which word is worse- who spreads his words on a platform called Tenet Media, based in Tennessee and which, according to the indictment of the United States Department of Justice, received nearly $10 million from the Russian state. For years, Pool focused on his campaign for Donald Trump and spread lies about the victims of the shooting, refugees and the 2020 American election. Pool now calls himself “a victim” and was unaware that the Kremlin was investing money to help him propagate his campaign messages in support of his usual arguments and his preferred candidate for the presidential election on November 5.
These latest revelations about Russian propaganda in favor of Trump are another element in the elusive debate about the extent to which social media is responsible for the deterioration of public debate and the rise of authoritarianism and intolerance. The flood of lies on social media about Kamala Harris in recent weeks and the army of anonymous accounts ready to spread hoaxes and hate left and right are visible to all. In the case of X, still a minority but present in the public debate due to its disproportionate use among politicians and journalists, the owner personally spreads lies and insults against Harris and in favor of Trump every day.
There is no academic consensus on the exact weight of lies and propaganda on the networks when it comes to deciding one’s vote. But, at least in the case of the United States, because of the electoral system that overrepresents some states, it is enough to encourage a few people to vote or stay home. A few tens of thousands of votes in Pennsylvania could decide on November 5 who will lead the most powerful country in the world.
The legal solution is not simple, even when governments start to hold platforms responsible for the most harmful content, as we have seen in the EU, the UK or Brazil. influencers The actors paid by Putin are just the tip of the iceberg of the many actors poisoning public debate, and sanctioning them or cutting off their funding may have little effect.
Information, as is often the case, as neutral and complete as possible on the existence of campaigns orchestrated with paid sympathizers and useful imbeciles in favor of malevolent States is a weapon for citizens and users of the networks.
In the face of Russian or other propaganda, more than censoring, limiting or punishing, public authorities can do something in favor of the independence and transparency of information, especially that which is in their hands, such as that of the public. This requires giving up power, which, as we have already seen, Spanish politicians do not really want to do. Perhaps by looking at the international panorama beyond local battles, we will better understand the issues at stake.
