Europe is not equipped to protect itself against disinformation and fight the storm of increasingly realistic fake AI-generated content. A firewall for European democracies that fences off a “European Internet” just like China can be a necessary thought experiment to highlight what Europe is up against. If the tech giants do not comply with fundamental European values, they are banned. Alternatively we could extend our existing media regulation to online platforms?
It is no secret that European democracies are under pressure. Since the beginning of Russia’s war on Ukraine, the broader European public has become aware of Russia’s destabilization and disinformation-campaigns and Putin’s troll armies on the internet. And after Trump’s election to the White House, his regime has started to interfere openly with European elections, for instance through Elon Musk’s support for the German AFD.
Even though this is a vast generalization, Europe seems unprepared for these threats. Social networks in Europe are dominated by US tech companies, and as such, European countries have little influence on the content that is published and distributed on these platforms. Despite of efforts to regulate big tech, Europe remains shockingly dependent on Google’s, Meta’s or TikTok’s mood about their community guidelines and their shifting desire to moderate content on its platforms.
Now, why is this a problem? In short, democracy is fundamentally based on the people’s trust in its institutions and politicians. If the trust in democracy’s legitimacy is shattered, for instance when people do not trust their leaders or believe that institutions are corrupt, people’s support for democracy and democratic parties vanishes. Just look at the US or the rise of the AFD in Germany (Now some would argue that both Trump and the AFD are democratically elected and thus are democratic leaders or parties. But it is very well possible to democratically elect anti-democratic forces).
It should be obvious to anyone, that fake videos of political leaders or fake audio of their statements are a massive threat to the trust that we can have in democratic systems.
If we cannot be sure of the truth, the doors to mass manipulation are wide open.
The spread of rumors and fake news, images and videos that are constantly exacerbated through troll- and bot armies, work to a large extent through social media platforms.
But in Europe, we are currently not equipped to protect ourselves against disinformation and destabilization campaigns online, and we are not really equipped to fight the coming storm of increasingly realistic fake AI-generated content. The floodgates for manipulation are wide open.
What can Europe do, then?
For a moment, let us entertain the following thought: How about a firewall for European democracies that fences off a “European Internet” just like China does? China strictly controls the internet, among other things, because the Chinese government wants to protect itself against political opponents at all costs. The Chinese government has realized the dangers of a completely unregulated online space, and it has acted in an extremely efficient way to combat what the government itself sees as its enemies. Platforms such as Tiktok are strictly regulated, and foreign services either have to comply with Chinese rules or are blocked.
Now, in light of the threats that European democracies face, could that be a possible strategy?
If Meta, Tiktok, Google and all the other giants do not comply with fundamental European values, and if they do not strictly combat anti-democratic forces on the European internet, they are banned.
As an example: If OpenAI does not make it impossible to generate fake-videos of real persons, then it cannot offer it’s services in Europe. Period. If Meta does not ban anti-democratic content on its platforms, they will be closed for Europe. Period.
Think about that for a minute. For most of us, this idea is completely outrageous, because it seems fundamentally undemocratic. Democratic states that completely regulate the online sphere? That would be the end of democracy and the free internet, would it not?
Enter the stage, Karl Popper. The German philosopher has shaped the paradox of tolerance. In short, the paradox of tolerance goes like this: To ensure tolerance in a society, society cannot tolerate the intolerant. Because if the intolerant are tolerated, they might take control and create an intolerant society. This could be extended to democracy: Democracy cannot tolerate anti-democratic forces, because otherwise the anti-democratic forces may gain power and ultimately abolish democracy. This is exactly what is happening in the United States at the moment. Germany has experienced the same when the Nazis where democratically elected (in the beginning) in the 1930s.
So, with this argument, a fenced-off European internet might not even sound completely outrageous.
Of course the idea is inherently flawed. First of all, European countries (let’s say the EU) would have to agree on some sort of codex for the European internet. What is allowed? What is banned? Try to get Hungary and Sweden to agree. Then of course, it would be the end of the “free” internet, and the beginning of European censorship. The latter stands in such a contrast to the democratic values that the EU is founded upon that it is almost unthinkable, no matter the outside threats. And of course, once such a European firewall is in place, it could fall into the wrong hands so to speak. If authoritarian governments gain power in Europe, such a firewall could easily be misused.
The idea of a European firewall is obviously not the answer to the external and online threats to European democracy. But the thought experiment hopefully underlines that something radical must happen if Europe does not want to be defenseless. With the advent of fake AI-content, time is precious.
What could an alternative solution be?
The Austrian lawyer and privacy activist Max Schrems and others have repeatedly suggested the following solution: Platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Tiktok and all the others must be made responsible and accountable for the content that is published on its platforms. At the moment, platforms are not truly responsible for content. Their argument is something like this: We are just providing a platform, we have nothing to do with the content and it’s impossible for us to control everything, and by the way that would be the end of the free internet.
But the opposite is true. When platforms dismiss their responsibility for the content uploaded and promoted on their platforms, there is no such thing as a free internet. First and foremost, platforms massively control which content we see through their black-boxed algorithms. The free internet, arguably, has already ended there, because what we see is constantly moderated by a few companies that have gained power over the public sphere. And secondly, unregulated platforms open the door for fake-news and manipulation.
Our democratic public sphere is inherently regulated through laws – for good historical reasons. We have free speech, but there are also limits to free speech in order to protect individuals and society as a whole, for example. If these boundaries are not in place, individuals and democracy cannot be secured. The paradox of tolerance strikes once again. This is also why newspapers and TV stations, which could be seen as a platform for journalists, are held accountable by law in many European countries.
Schrems and others argue that we need to extend our existing newspaper and media regulation to online platforms. Once that happens, platforms will be forced to moderate content and they will be accountable to democratic media legislation. In other words: They can be made responsible for the spread of fake news, disinformation and other harmful content. And when penalties are set accordingly, and most importantly, when laws are enforced, platform providers will be forced to comply and to adhere to European law.
Now some might argue that this is similar to a firewall, or that this is limiting free speech online. I do not agree. It is just the creation of an equal playing field.
Online platforms have been mostly unregulated for a decade or two, and we are now so used to unregulated speech on the internet that we confuse the complete lack of regulation with the kind of democratic freedoms that most European countries are based on. It is about time that we change that.
We can only protect our democracies, if we hold big tech and platform providers accountable to our democratic values and the rule of law. We can only protect our democracies, if we have the means to fight back against democracy’s enemies online. At the moment we do not have the means at all. All we can do is passively watch, while they destabilise democracy from within. We need those means. And that is why we need strict regulation of online platforms, and why we need to make these platforms responsible for published content and their algorithmic choices. They must play by our democratic rules. Otherwise, we, as democracies, cannot tolerate them. We cannot tolerate the intolerant.
Photo: Steven Harlan, Unsplash.com
