Defend Democracy and Digital Rights
An interview with Alice Stollmeyer
Alice Stollmeyer, the number one female digital EU influencer in 2019 and 2020 and the Founder and Executive Director of Defend Democracy, talks to Find Out Why about the importance of defending democracy from the threat that the business model of big tech companies poses to societies and shares her reflections on the issue of online manipulation based on Defend Democracy’s successful run of “Kieskijker”, a social media watchdog monitoring manipulation and disinformation around the Dutch elections on 17 March 2021.
continue reading or listen on Spotify
Micro targeting and political advertising were not restricted at the time of Dutch elections. How would you comment on that?
It’s high time that social media platforms and browsers start offering equal election protection to their users worldwide, including full transparency of political ads. However, political ads are only the tip of the iceberg. Defend Democracy created a social media watchdog “Kieskijker” which observed many inauthentic online activities around the general elections on 17 March 2021. Through a real-time campaign, Kieskijker exposed disinformation and manipulation, thereby decreasing harmful effects and increasing digital literacy.
Do you believe that the Dutch authorities took measures to avoid manipulation of the vote?
They did a lot but I’m not sure they did enough. They developed policies, they assigned to other parties the development of a voluntary code of conduct, they outsourced detection and awareness campaigns to external parties… But apart from that, I don’t have the impression that the Dutch government was proactively taking their own measures to prevent unwanted interference and harmful disinformation in order to protect the integrity of our democracy. I haven’t seen deterrent actions such as raising costs by threatening with sanctions. I think that’s a missed opportunity.
How aware is the Dutch population of phenomena such as online disinformation campaigns?
A large part of the Dutch population is very worried about disinformation. About 70% is concerned about fake news. They are also worried about the potential effect of fake news on voting behaviour. However, there is a quite a discrepancy between people’s perceptions: on the one hand 75% of Dutch people think they encounter fake news weekly or more often, but at the same time, 64% claim they never share a fake news story themselves.
People tend to overestimate their ability to spot fake news. A majority think they can recognize fake news themselves, but they doubt whether others can. Probably no one likes to hear or learn that they can be tricked into believing something false, but we can all potentially become victims of sophisticated disinformation campaigns. The pandemic, with its “infodemic”, has raised the stakes. Momentum for regulating platforms has increased. But of course we also need more proactive measures, like increasing costs for malign and criminal online behaviour.
Those who post controversial content online often get more traction because their posts are engaging. How can democracy and rational political debate survive this model?
Well, that is an interesting question. Can the traction be attributed to the content of a post or to the algorithm that enhances it? I don’t have the answer, but I do know that as long as big tech platforms have polarisation as their business model, then our public debate, our shared reality, and thus democracy, are at risk.
Is there a solution?
There is probably no easy solution. However, I would love to see public alternatives to internet, browsers, platforms and devices. Where the existing profit-driven polarising business models are replaced by transparency, accountability, privacy, security, rights, ethics, and democratic checks and balances. No need to ban or censor commercial versions, just offer all citizens access to public alternatives. That could be a good start.
What is your opinion on the Digital Services Act?
I have participated in working groups on the European Democracy Action Plan and on the Digital Services Act. One of our demands is default transparency for all political ads. To that I would add the importance of deterrent actions, like sanctions, that should fall upon foreign state and non-state actors with criminal or malign intent. Of course, I should specify that such sanctions would not — and should not — target an individual posting a lie; that is freedom of expression and no democracy wants a “Ministry of Truth”. However, when organised disinformation and manipulation campaigns take place online, then EU institutions and the national governments should act proactively to protect the freedom of information and expression of real citizens. That said, I’m fine with banning a bot. I don’t think bots have human rights.
What is the fine line between freedom of speech online and phenomena of digital harassment?
The controversial and polarising content that gets amplified threatens women and minority groups because they often get disproportionately targeted. I recently read that female politicians encounter hate speech on social media platforms to the extent that their freedom of speech is in danger. Freedom of expression and information in an open and equally accessible public sphere, not distorted by artificial algorithms, is a human right and that should be at the heart of any legislation such as the Digital Services Act.
Are there any alternatives towards that end?
In extreme cases, de-platforming can be a measure to enforce platforms’ terms of service. In this context, it should not be considered a measure that censors malign actors but a measure that protects the freedoms and rights of their victims and regular platform users.
Something that goes less far is making so-called “speed bumps”, which in certain cases change the algorithms that would normally amplify outrageous content. That intervention ensures that certain posts cannot be liked or receive comments or be shared. Which also is not about censorship. As in the discussion on de-platforming, one must always remember that the freedom of speech is not the freedom of reach.
What is the role of civil society in defending democracy?
One of the things that organisations like Defend Democracy can do is not just to help raise awareness, but also lobby for more ambitious and more urgent action. Another important mission of our organisation is to connect likeminded people, both online and offline. It’s important to bond and to feel part of a community: to inspire, to take action, to share ideas, and to motivate each other as active citizens. It’s what you need to keep going.
How do you succeed in the latter?
We organise monthly “Democracy Drinks”; in-person, informal networking events for democracy defenders and other people that are interested in defending democracy. We started those events in Brussels in 2018. There are now Democracy Drinks in Berlin, in Washington DC, in Copenhagen, in Montreal, and soon in The Hague too.
