Do social media fuel fake news in Switzerland as much as in the US?

Switzerland is better protected against disinformation than countries such as the US. Is this because it has a better system and more circumspect citizens – or simply because fewer troll factories are interested in Switzerland? 

Many people obtain information from social media instead of radio, television or newspapers. And many people are concerned that because of this, important news is missed, incorrect information is being spread more widely, and people are cocooned in their own filter bubble, only receiving information that they have chosen to receive. 

Unlike radio and television, social media are not bound by national borders. They are global. So it might seem logical to conclude that if social media drive fake news, disinformation and polarisation, they do so to the same extent all around the world. But that is not the case. 

There are countries and regions that have fewer defences against online disinformation than others. The US is particularly exposed. 

The study “Resilience to online disinformation: a framework for cross-national comparative research”, published by the University of Zurich in 2020, looked at various European countries and the US. It describes the US as a special case with regard to online disinformation. 

The reasons are economic and structural. “The country stands out because of its large advertising market, its weak public service media and its comparatively fragmented news consumption,” the authors wrote. “The enormous size of its market – and its competitive and commercial culture – makes the US attractive for producers of disinformation targeting social media users.” 

The study concludes that the US is “the most vulnerable country” to the spread of online disinformation. 

Social media as a source of information? 

Developments in recent years have, however, led to a greater awareness of online disinformation among many people internationally. According to the Reuters Digital News Report 2023, only 17% of users are still completely unconcerned about getting information via social media – the rest worry that they are missing out on important information or that their opinions are not being sufficiently challenged. 

Many still use social media for news, but in some countries the share has dwindled. In Switzerland, every second person used social media as an information source in 2018, while in 2023, it is just 39%. The US reached its record of 51% back in 2017; in 2022, the share was still 42%. 

The percentages are higher in many African countries. In Nigeria, 78% currently use social media as a news source. 

Social media have never been the decisive medium for forming political opinions in Switzerland: the 2021 reference book Digitalisierung der Schweizer Demokratie (Digitalisation of Swiss Democracy), for example, concluded that “a clear majority of Swiss voters do not consult social media to form an opinion ahead of elections and referendums”. 

Radio, television and newspapers are still more important sources of information on politics in Switzerland. They are also more trusted. 

Tobias Keller, a media and political scientist at research institute gfs.Bern who worked on the book about digitalising Swiss democracy, told SWI swissinfo.ch that there are some factors that distinguish the situation in Switzerland from that of the US and Brazil. Mass media in the US have “much stronger political biases than in Switzerland – and social media fuel politically biased views”, he said. In Brazil, on the other hand, WhatsApp and Telegram are “very important information channels”. One-sided or false information is rarely exposed in this semi-public sphere.  

According to Keller, the interplay of public and private media in Switzerland, as well as the multi-party system with its consensus-oriented politics, are factors in the country’s resilience to polarisation and populism on the internet, relative to other countries. 

Digitalisierung der Schweizer Demokratie maintains that frequent voting serves as a kind of training for detecting disinformation. “Having assessed hundreds of political proposals and experienced hundreds of campaigns, Swiss voters are very accustomed to evaluating diametrically opposed information [...]. This increases resistance to dubious information,” it said – regardless of the medium. 

In other words, referendum flyers have already taught the Swiss that they cannot always trust information, no matter where it comes from. And they are aware that populism existed long before Facebook. 

Social media platforms are not only seen as purveyors of fake news – they are also frequently blamed for political polarisation and the success of populist forces. 

For her dissertation, communications scholar Sina Blassnig from the University of Zurich examined how populist communication takes place on the internet. Among other things, she compared how often politicians from Switzerland, Germany, the US and Britain made populist comments on political talk shows and the internet. She also looked at the kinds of comments they made. 

In her view, “certain features of the Swiss political system” that have often been seen as hurdles to populism are more conducive to it – such as the frequent referendums. “The regular referendums could in fact promote a permanent populist campaign and therefore offset the restrictive effects of the directorial and proportional representation system,” she said.  

Blassnig said that although the entire political spectrum uses populist rhetoric “from time to time”, there is “a dominance of right-wing populism” in Switzerland, she said. But this populism is older than widespread internet usage. “Compared with other countries, Switzerland has had a strong right-wing populist movement since the 1990s,” she said. 

Edda Humprecht conducts research at the University of Zurich and is the lead author of the study that identified the US as the country most vulnerable to disinformation. 

In this study, Switzerland belongs to a cluster of northern European countries that have the highest resistance to harmful fake news. But for Humprecht, this is a product not only of democratic stability but also of its size, language divisions and low geopolitical importance.  

Is Switzerland generally resilient to polarisation and populism, or is its resilience limited to social media as an accelerator of disinformation? “Neither,” Humprecht said. “Polarisation and populism play just as big a role as in many other countries. Social media is used widely in Switzerland. The country is merely less attractive for orchestrated campaigns.” 

She agreed there are resilience factors, such as a well-developed media system. “But the strata that are susceptible to disinformation from the right-wing spectrum often don’t use the public media,” she said.  

Humprecht sees social factors as more significant. “In Switzerland, the number of economically marginalised people is smaller than in France.” This contributes to a certain resilience, as does the small advertising market, she said. 

In the study, Humprecht and her co-authors used advertising markets and thus profit orientation as a yardstick because this is easier to measure than geopolitical importance. “But geopolitics is just as important. Switzerland is in a good position there: it is less interesting for Russia or China to exert influence in Switzerland than in a large country.” 

One reason why Switzerland is less threatened by fake news than the US is that Switzerland is simply not as interesting as the US. 

Edited by David Eugster. Translated from German by Catherine Hickley 

Fake news on social media?

"We are not doomed to live in populist times"

Claire Micallef

https://pilot-prod-videos.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/en/tall-cerulean-whale_de_DEEPGRAM-WHISPER.vtt

2024 is a global super election year. In many of these elections, populists and autocrats could gain strength. Their rise is often associated with social media, as on these platforms, they can speak directly and unfiltered to their audience. The German political scientist Jan-Werner Müller is researching populism at Princeton University. He relativises the supposedly democracy-threatening influence of social media.

SRF News: Can the rise of autocrats and populists be attributed solely to social media?

Jan-Werner Müller: After the double shock of 2016 with Brexit and the election of Donald Trump as US President, people have made it too easy for themselves. The explanation that social media is to blame for everything is too simplistic. For some, it has also reopened the floodgates for prejudices about "the people". The motto: Look at the nonsense that emerges when "the simple people" can articulate themselves: Fake news and post-truth, i.e., things that do not correspond to the truth.

Of course, there are many examples of this. But this kind of technological determinism is not correct. The medium itself does not have this political significance. This has also been empirically confirmed: not everything can be reduced to filter bubbles and echo chambers, as was thought a few years ago.

Of course, echo chambers exist, as does a self-contained media bubble – especially in the US. These phenomena existed even before the internet and can be traced back to radio and cable television. Their rise, in turn, has a lot to do with politically desired regulation resp. deregulation. The internet itself is not to blame. If anything, research tells us that our life online is sometimes more diverse than our life offline. That doesn’t mean that things are "better" and people become more tolerant, for example. It depends on the content and who allies with whom.

There is a mechanism in social media that populists can exploit.

However, there is a certain elective affinity between populism and social media. In the past, citizens could be mobilised either through a party or through clientelism, by promising them benefits. Social media has made it possible to address an extremely large number of people directly. Indeed, this has enabled some politicians, who otherwise would not have had a chance to mobilise, to suddenly win over many people for themselves.

So you don’t primarily attribute these developments to social media?

It would be wrong to say that every politician who uses social media automatically does something populist. Many others are still willing to work with parties and limit themselves in their actions and speeches. So we are not doomed to live in populist times. Nevertheless, there is a mechanism in social media that populists can exploit. The question for all of us is: How can we prevent politicians like Bolsonaro or Trump from doing this in their own way?

As old-fashioned and boring as it may sound: There are certain regulatory possibilities. It can be stipulated that anyone who wants to get involved in politics must continue to do so through parties. And these must meet certain minimum democratic standards.

The interview was conducted by Iwan Lieberherr.

What influence do social media have?

"Sharenting" is also a problematic phenomenon in Switzerland

https://pilot-prod-videos.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/en/closed-orchid-hedgehog-1_fr_DEEPGRAM-WHISPER.vtt

Sharing pictures and videos of your children on social media is not without risks. Furthermore, children also have a right to their own image. This phenomenon has a name: "sharenting". While France is planning to take legislative action in this area, Switzerland is currently focussing on prevention.

Posting photos of your children on social media, sharing their first steps, their first time using the potty, or their bath time can be tempting. However, this poses a problem. That of the right to one’s image. This phenomenon has a name: “sharenting”, a combination of the English words “share” and “parenting”.

While children also have the right to protection of their image, they are not always old enough to give their consent. Without their knowledge, they end up on social networks even before they are aware of their existence. So much so that in France, the Secretary of State for Children is considering intervening in certain cases, by withdrawing the relevant authorisations for the digital dissemination of images from parents.

In Switzerland, Pro Juventute is looking into this issue. According to Concetta Scarfò, digital skills coordinator for Pro Juventute, "photos published on the internet and social media can be used for pornographic purposes. This happens everywhere, not just in Switzerland. Parents really need to be careful when posting photos on the Internet. Unfortunately, people with bad intentions could use these images," she explains in the RTS programme "On en parle".

Degrading montages using existing photos and artificial intelligence are also a threat. "This is already happening in Switzerland. It is how everything related to pornography works." Concetta Scarfò also recommends being cautious when using messaging services such as WhatsApp, since all contacts have access to statuses and profile pictures.

However, there are safeguards in place on social media. "For example, it is possible to apply filters that remove the child’s face. Avoiding posting photos of your son or daughter at the seaside, for example, is also a solution. Aside from these basic precautions, I recommend sharing only with people you trust," adds Concetta Scarfò.  

Sometimes, it's not the parents who cause the problem, but the rest of the family such as grandparents, uncles, and aunts. How to approach the subject? "They need to be warned about the risks. I don't think neither uncle nor godmother wants their nephew to end up on pornographic forums. All you have to do is openly discuss the subject and say 'I'd rather not take any risks for my child, so please try to respect my choices'".

The problem can also come from the children, as more and more of them own mobile phones before the age of 10. "It’s a learning process for parents to make their children aware of the risks they take when sharing photos with friends. I'd advise children to choose the friends who they send these photos to and that this should be done via a private WhatsApp profile or group."

Faced with the phenomenon of "sharenting", France is considering implementing certain laws. Would Pro Juventute like to see Switzerland do the same? "I think the federal government is already focusing on prevention, which is a very important aspect. This is also what Pro Juventute is doing. We need to think about what is possible in the form of laws or regulations, because this is a private matter. In any case, we need to keep up with technological developments to effectively regulate these dangers," concludes Concetta Scarfò.

Sharenting:a problematic phenomenon

Find out where you stand

What should be done when young people feel pressured by social media?

https://pilot-prod-videos.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/en/testy-cyan-goldfish_roh-rumgr_RECAPP.vtt

Under pressure due to social media

Molly Russell case, victim of social media

Dangerous online content: six years after the death of young British woman Patti Chiari takes stock of platform safety measures. Little progress made

Ian Russell has no doubt: Instagram contributed to his daughter's death. It is 2017, Molly is 14 years old, and one November evening after eating dinner and watching television with her family, she retreats to her room. The next morning her mother, Ruth, will find her lifeless, the result of an act of self-harm. Desperate for answers, the father accesses his daughter's social accounts and stumbles upon a shocking reality. While some of Molly's online activities reflected the common interests of a young girl, others involved self-harm and suicide.

An investigation is conducted to ascertain the cause of death, and the data that emerge are alarming. In the last six months of her life, Molly interacted with more than 2,100 posts on Instagram associated with depression, self-harm or suicide. "This material has affected her mental health in a significant and non-secondary way," said Andrew Walker, a medical examiner involved in the case. Such findings confirm Mr. Russell's fears that his daughter's death was, yes, due to depression, but also due to the negative effects of online content.

Molly's case thus marks a turning point. For the first time the finger is pointed at social media, which between feeble justification and a few admissions of guilt promises to do better.

Little, it would seem. Content moderation is a thorny issue for companies as they try to balance security and freedom of expression. The goal of platforms, however, remains to keep their users glued to the app. And extreme content, which provokes outrage and buzz, works best. The algorithm knows this and follows this logic.

Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X have actually introduced measures to limit access to potentially harmful material. If one types in keywords such as self-harm or suicide, the search is blocked and a message appears asking the user if they need help. As Patti Chiari's investigation shows, however, getting around these restrictions is very easy, all it takes is to enter the right hashtags. On Instagram, it is even enough to click the "see post" tag. Thus, images of open wounds, blood and razor blades, destructive messages and even advice appear. And after searching for suicide-related content, the algorithm identifies the topic as our main interest, continuing to bombard us with anxious and depressing phrases. This is exactly what happened to the English girl: she fell into a mechanism that continually replayed her frailties.

Mr. Russell's words are a reminder that despite the promises made we are still far from a completely safe online environment. The debate on protecting the mental health of users-especially underage users-is therefore more relevant and necessary than ever. Also in memory of Molly whose story was the focus of the episode of Patti Chiari on Jan. 19, 2024.