“Disinformation can be a lifestyle”: Tomáš Koblížek on how faux information thrives – and the way to withstand it

If we’re talking about disinformation, what do you imply by that time period?

“Actually, there are a number of options that this phenomenon has.

“We can begin with an instance and disinformation concerning the city of Bucha, the place the Russian Army dedicated an enormous bloodbath in 2022.

“What makes it disinformation? First it’s a part of mass communication, so disinformation is just not after I inform any person one thing on the bus cease.

“So it’s one thing that occurs on radio or tv or by way of the web.

“The second factor is that you’re making an attempt to govern the plenty with that data.

“And actually manipulating is different from deceiving or deception. Of course deception is type of manipulation.

“So for example when you take the disinformation about Bucha it might be thought of as a deception, that you are trying to persuade somebody that Ukrainians actually did it.

“But sometimes you can have the aim that people will just get confused, that they lose interest in the topic; they get contradictory information so they fall into apathy.

“That’s another aim of disinformation campaigns and it’s also manipulation.

“So it’s not only about deception but also about different aims.”

It’s additionally about undermining the precise fact, partly by form of flooding individuals with nonsense?

“With nonsense. And that might be the case when you want to get people bored by the topic, when you want people to be not interested in the war in Ukraine anymore.”

Because from their perspective it makes it more durable to determine what’s true so why make any choice? They simply let it wash over them.

“Yes, that’s it.

“And I think that’s the reason why you should not measure the impact of disinformation only by measuring how many people are deceived by disinformation – you should also measure how many people got bored by the information, etcetera.”

In the guide you confer with quite a lot of English language terminology, corresponding to affirmation bias and backfire impact. But I used to be and amused that you just additionally use the time period bullsh*t, which you say is a technical time period for disinformation corresponding to when Trump claimed that Haitian immigrants in Ohio had been consuming canine and cats.

“Yes. I’m actually sorry that I’ve to make use of this phrase on Czech Radio, however actually it’s a technical time period. There is a guide printed by Stanford University Press, I feel, and written by Harry Frankfurter and it’s referred to as On Bullshit.

“Bullsh*t is a selected sort of manipulation. It’s completely different from mendacity, as a result of when you’re mendacity you are attempting to steer any person about one thing that’s not true.

“Trump says anything – part of it is true, part of it is not and that’s bullsh*tting.”

Tomáš Koblížek

“When you are bullsh*tting you just do not care if what you are saying is true or false. You’re just saying anything that fits with your aims.

“This is what Donald Trump does very often. He says anything – part of it is true, part of it is not and that’s bullsh*tting.

“He just doesn’t care if it’s true or not.”

Also hasn’t [Trump associate] Steve Bannon spoken about “flooding the zone with sh*t”?

“Yes. That’s also a very famous statement.

“It’s referring exactly to this phenomenon: just say anything and get attention – some of the information we use will be true, some will not, but what we need is to flood the zone with information and get the attention.”

Why is disinformation such a giant problem at this second in historical past? Am I proper in considering that it form of accelerated in the course of the Covid years?

“Well it’s not solely Covid. I feel the brand new wave of curiosity in disinformation began in 2016 after we had the victory of Donald Trump and Brexit within the UK – I feel these are two massive explanation why individuals acquired once more.

“And I think today the simple answer to the question is the war, because the war is not very far from Prague – it’s a one-day drive to get to the front – and part of the war is also a disinformation and misinformation campaign.

“Russia wants you to think something about the conflict. They want you to think that it is just a defence from the side of Russia but it is of course not, it’s an aggression.”

Technology should even be massively intensifying this entire space?

“Yes, it’s not only about the technology – it’s also about the architecture of today’s media.

“The traditional media have editors, they have some standards, but with social media you don’t have any editors, you don’t have any standards.

“We are trying to push Facebook and X to adhere to some standards, but they resist.

“And now it’s actually very easy to spread disinformation or hate speech on social media – that’s a fact.”

In this nation what are the most typical kinds of disinformation? Or what’s the most typical substance of disinformation?

“I feel there are very various kinds of disinformation. For instance now we have now a lot of disinformation about local weather change.

“I feel that’s one thing massive as a result of there are some financial gamers who don’t need to adapt to this actuality, as a result of local weather change exists.

“Disinformation about LGBT people or Roma people makes the lives of these people really difficult.”

Tomáš Koblížek

“So I think there is some disinformation that is supported from this side.

“But of course there is also disinformation about the war.

“And one thing that really interests me – because I am also interested in hate speech – is disinformation about minorities, about LGBT people or Roma people, which makes the lives of these people really difficult.”

About disinformation about local weather change, for instance, is that being produced in Czechia? Are there Czech actors, do you suppose, who’re spreading these things?

“I think it is a sort of cooperation. Because as we know there are really powerful players in the US that spread disinformation about climate change.

“And we can say that part of this disinformation is taken from the US, they just translate it into the Czech context, but of course there is disinformation that is made here: Czech made, handmade disinformation [laughs].

“So I think it’s a type of mix. There are some classic anti-climate narratives that are just used, but some of them are invented here.”

And presumably it’s comparable in terms of Ukraine – quite a lot of it comes from Russia however different stuff is “home produced”?

“Yes. And there is also a lot of disinformation about climate change that comes from Russia.

“Because, as we know, Russia is not very happy about the Green Deal, which would make us more free regarding dependence on energy or gas coming from Russia.

“So they try to attack the Green Deal and bomb this issue.”

Are the people who find themselves spreading disinformation in Czechia normally aware that they’re doing it? Or are those that are aware in a minority?

“OK, so when you talk about disinformation you are saying that somebody is intentionally misleading someone else.

“But of course there are some people who believe the disinformation and in this moment we say that it is misinformation, that these people are misinformed.

“Of course there are lots of people who know that what they are saying is not true, or is a manipulation, but they have special interests that make them do that.

“And there are lots of people who believe this disinformation and I would not call them ‘disinformers’ but ‘misinformers’, because they don’t have the intention to mislead – they really believe all the myths about migration or climate change or LGBT people and they just spread it like a truth.”

You’re not a psychologist, however nonetheless, what makes individuals imagine the actually far out stuff? Like, for instance, {that a} cabal of senior democrats are operating a paedophile ring from a pizzeria in Washington.

“This is a very attention-grabbing subject and I feel there are a number of solutions to this.

“But I feel the very first thing it’s a must to do is to make a distinction between believing a loopy conspiracy idea and simply saying it.

“Take for instance flat earthers. As we all know from the analysis, a few of these individuals truly don’t imagine that the earth is flat.

“You have to do is to make a distinction between believing a crazy conspiracy theory and just saying it.”

Tomáš Koblížek

“They are just saying it to express some distrust towards science. It’s just a way of saying, I don’t believe the scientists. It’s a sort of provocation.

“But some of them really believe it – and that’s really a question.

“They are so deeply distrusting of science that they might believe that nothing we get from science is true.”

And when individuals comprehend it’s not true however nonetheless say the earth is flat, is {that a} type of trolling?

“That might be a form of trolling. But it might also be a form of business.

“We know that some big influencers on YouTube, for example, who talk a lot about the earth being flat just knew that this would catch attention and they have really got lots of money from this.

“They’ve made documentaries about the earth being flat and didn’t believe it, but they got lots of money from that.

“So that might also be a reason why some people say that – it’s a business model.”

Again, within the case of the declare there’s a paedophile ring of senior democrats based mostly on a pizzeria in Washington, if it had been someway confirmed to the individuals who imagine that that it was a load of nonsense, do you suppose not less than a few of them wouldn’t care? They would nonetheless be comfortable to imagine as a result of they hate the Democrats, for instance?

“Yes, of course this is true.

“Because what matters with fact-checking – when you are presenting somebody with evidence or the facts – is not only the content of what you are saying but the person who is giving you the information.

“For example, if these people do not believe scientists and a scientist comes to them it has no value.

“So it’s really important that there are some people who still have a certain trust from these circles – and they might have an influence on them.”

When it involves fact-checking is it price doing within the “post-truth age”? Does it make sense to argue again, particularly when, as we’ve been talking about, there’s such an unlimited ocean of nonsense on the market?

“Oh yes, it’s always important to tell the truth…”

But telling the reality is completely different from fact-checking.

“Well [laughs], we might talk about that.

“But I feel you would say that there’s an ethical obligation to inform the details [laughs]. You might put it like that.

“I feel it’s important, however there are different issues that it’s a must to do, as a result of, as I’ve simply mentioned, some individuals won’t imagine what you’re saying, although you might have actually robust proof.

“For instance, what you want can be one thing like media literacy.

“Already kids around nine or 10 years of age become the target of disinformation campaigns.”

Tomáš Koblížek

“It sounds like a cliché in words but in reality it’s not at cliché at all, because there are lots of elementary schools in the Czech Republic that do not have programmes of media literacy.

“And we know from the research that already kids around nine or 10 years of age become the target of disinformation campaigns.

“They can see something on Instagram or Facebook, and the kids should be ready, I think.”

What form of stuff is being focused at 10-year-olds?

“It could be one thing about minorities. There is a few anti-LGBT propaganda that’s unfold in order that children can get in touch with it at a really low age.

“Because there are some… I don’t name them conservative circles, I feel they’re pseudo conservative circles, which might be actually upset concerning the ‘gender agenda’ or equality relating to gender.

“So they spread disinformation about this topic for kids of a young age.”

But you’re saying that media literacy schooling does work?

“Oh yes, it’s the basis I think.

“Because you really need kids that know that they should verify information.

“For us when you say you should verify information it sounds, again, like a cliché, but when you are eight or nine years old you might not know that.”

What about with older individuals? Is there any means you possibly can train an previous canine, so to talk, new tips in terms of being extra sceptical, or extra considerate, about what they’re consuming?

“Yes, I think it’s really important to have a dialogue with anybody.

“Very often when you think about disinformation, very often people think that it’s something in your head.

“But for some people, and not only older people, it’s a lifestyle. They spend their time watching disinformation news on disinformation websites. Because they are socially isolated.

“So one thing you might do is not to persuade them about disinformation, but just to get them out of this kind of life – just take them to the cinema, for example [laughs].”

So I’ll should take a few of my bizarre neighbours to the cinema.

“[Laughs] I’m just debating, you have to do lots of things, but I’m just trying to say that disinformation is also a lifestyle.”

What about regulation? Is regulation on this nation adequate at current? I do know hate speech is one among your areas of experience and we have already got hate speech legal guidelines. And I suppose the state does take some measures towards disinformation, for instance banning a lot of Russian propaganda web sites quickly after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Are the authorities doing sufficient, do you’re feeling?

“Yes, there’s an enormous debate about this within the Czech Republic proper now.

“Because there was a distinction between what the federal government was saying and what the federal government actually did.

“For some people, and not only older people, it’s a lifestyle.”

Tomáš Koblížek

“Our government was presenting itself as fighters against disinformation, but now we have found out – thanks to Voxpot, a group of journalists – that, for example, the government knew about some strong disinformation campaigns and did nothing.

“So we could do more.”

But certainly the subsequent authorities will do much less? If you see the events which might be heading in direction of a coalition, they’d be unlikely to encourage regulation, certainly?

“Well, we will see. We people who are working in this domain should persuade any politicians from the next government that this is an important topic.

“Actually it doesn’t depend if you are right-wing or left-wing – you want to have good information, so you should care about the information environment, because it might also affect your decisions.”

One might simply think about the scenario relating to disinformation will solely intensify in future. But what do you suppose trying forwards? Do you see any grounds for optimism for liberals, for instance, or for individuals who want to stay in a society the place fact is definitely acknowledged as fact?

“Maybe this will sound really crazy, but I’m a big optimist.

“I think it’s not good to be too apocalyptic about disinformation.

“We always imagine it as a giant and we cannot really do anything.

“I think disinformation is as big as we are, but now we have a tendency to only observe it, to do nothing.

“But we know there are lots of examples from the world where we see that you can fight disinformation very effectively.

“A good example is Finland, where actually kids already at elementary school learn about the difference between misinformation and disinformation and about verifying sources – and then you can see that Finland is the top country regarding resistance against disinformation.

“So it’s difficult but it’s doable, and I believe that we will do it also one day.”

Obviously individuals at the moment eat media otherwise than they did even 5 or 10 years in the past. But is there any onus on media organisations to current information otherwise, or to do one thing otherwise so that they take extra of individuals’s consideration and persons are much less drawn to the margins?

“One thing that the media could do, or some journalists could do [laughs], is for example not to label people who believe disinformation.

“For example, I use the word disinformation quite often, but I would never use the word ‘disinformer’, because you are just labelling somebody as a person who will always believe this [laughs] bullsh*t, let’s say.

“So perhaps we should talk about disinformation but we should stop labelling people, or groups, as groups that are… in Czech we use the word ‘dezolát’.”

It’s one thing like “deplorable”, as Hillary Clinton referred to as them – it’s comparable.

“Yes. Just stop using this, because then the people get angry at you and dialogue stops. So this is one thing that we could stop doing.”

That means form of protecting a door open for these individuals, in the event that they need to cease being in that world – to allow them to return to extra mainstream outlooks?

“The very first thing you are able to do is to say, This is disinformation for this and this cause, we have now proof for that, and I feel you imagine it due to this and this cause – am I proper?

“One thing that the media could do is not to label people who believe disinformation.”

Tomáš Koblížek

“I think this is the way we can start a conversation. It’s just better than labelling somebody with bad words.”

Do you might have conversations together with your neighbours or others concerning the issues we’re talking about?

“I don’t have so many people around me who would really believe major disinformation.

“But I know about these cases and I know that it’s very hard.

“But we have to believe [laughs] – and I believe we will see results.”

I needed to finish this dialog with slightly bit about philosophy itself. You are a thinker of language and it’s not usually I get to interview a thinker. Is there respect to your discipline in Czechia, do you’re feeling?

“Actually there was a survey lately about the relationship of society towards philosophy, or what people think about philosophy, and I think 40 percent of people had a certain respect for philosophers.

“But I think we could work on this a little bit more.

“I think the problem is that in the Czech Republic people are still too interested in philosophical personalities.

“And for example when you go to France people are just interested in philosophical topics – and they don’t care too much about who communicates them.

“So I think this might change, because we have so many experts on very difficult questions like euthanasia, but they don’t get into the media very often.

“And I think that might get philosophy much more popular.”

Way again within the mists of time, I personally studied philosophy. One factor we had been advised at my college was that the time period thinker shouldn’t be overused, that it doesn’t apply to anyone who has a philosophy diploma or perhaps even teaches the topic. It needs to be any person who contributes to philosophy. But on this nation I see some individuals calling themselves philosophers and I’m considering, Are they actually one? Do you realize what I imply?

“I’m quite liberal about the word philosopher. If you want to call yourself a philosopher you can – I have nothing against it.

“But for me what philosophers do is that they bring strong arguments. And what makes you a good philosopher is that you bring a strong argument about something, like for example freedom of speech or how to define lying.

“If you bring some interesting definition and you persuade others with your arguments then you are a philosopher, because these are really difficult topics.

“So many people have written about them, so if you bring something new, and if you bring some arguments, well, that would be good [laughs].”

Was Václav Havel a thinker? He’s at all times described as one, however I don’t know if he was.

“You know, there’s something about Václav Havel. Because some people say [laughs] – “some people say” is such a humorous phrase – that he was not likely a thinker; he was not an expert thinker.

“But, for example, he wrote The Power of the Powerless, which I think is one of the most cited philosophical works in the history of Czech contemporary philosophy.

“How many contemporary philosophers have a book like this, cited so much?

“So he has this achievement. And of course he had very interesting philosophical arguments about propaganda, thoughts that belong to political philosophy, so to me he was a really good, interesting philosopher.”

For you who’s the best or probably the most vital Czech thinker?

“Oh, I don’t do these rankings [laughs]. I’m sorry.

“But there are some interesting personalities that I admire. For example one of my teachers, who is not very well known to the public – his name is Pavel Kouba.

“In the 1990s he wrote a book on Nietzsche that wasn’t only influential here – it was also translated into German and Spanish.

“He’s somebody who really had an influence on me and I really like his way of thinking, let’s say. But there are also others.”

Tomáš Koblížek works on the Institute of Philosophy of the Czech Academy of Sciences and with Ask the Scientist venture.