{"id":3513,"date":"2024-11-28T08:51:49","date_gmt":"2024-11-28T07:51:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fojo.se\/faktajouren\/?p=3513"},"modified":"2026-02-24T11:46:47","modified_gmt":"2026-02-24T10:46:47","slug":"the-undeterred-fight-against-disinformation-a-conversation-with-nina-jankowicz-from-the-american-sunlight-project-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fojo.se\/verify\/the-undeterred-fight-against-disinformation-a-conversation-with-nina-jankowicz-from-the-american-sunlight-project-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"The undeterred fight against disinformation – part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Kaia Nisser & Andreas \u00d6nnerfors, Fojo Media Institute \u00a9 2024
\u00a0
In this second part of our conversation with Nina Jankowicz we focused on what possibly lies ahead of us in the light of the incoming US \u201cbroligarchy\u201d committed to disrupt, dismantle and discredit work against disinformation in the public interest. We discussed the role of tech bosses and social media giants, aspects of identity-based disinformation, the case of Sweden and possible ways forward.
<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The threat of the second Trump-presidency<\/strong><\/h6>\n\n\n\n


From the harassment Jankowicz experienced, it emerges that the American right has an obsession with the so-called \u201ccensorship-industrial complex<\/a>\u201d as it is called in an official report from the \u201cCommittee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government\u201d, headed by Republican congressman from Ohio, Jim Jordan. The report reads like a surreal conspiratorial fairytale wherein requesting huge internet platforms to moderate malign or fabricated content (and obvious dis-\/misinformation) amounts to censoring Americans and suppressing the truth.
\u00a0
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 To Jankowicz, the work of the Subcommittee is \u201cabsurd because what he\u2019s doing is weaponizing the federal government in order to quash public interest research\u201d which \u201cthey say are working, conspiring with social media platforms to censor conservatives, even though the data shows that that\u2019s not happening\u201d. What ASP has tracked in this area of controversy is the \u201cinformation laundering cycle where a fringe blogger will make a crazy allegation that spurs an investigation by this committee who has subpoena power\u201d (see box below and the ASP\u2019s report<\/a> on the topic). This power is then used \u201cso they can request documents that public institutions like the University of Washington are required to provide to third-party entities like a group called America First Legal\u201d. The pressure against independent institutions increases when \u201cyou throw in tech moguls like Elon Musk, who is very close to Jim Jordan, and it gets even more complex. And it\u2019s a lot of pressure for academic institutions and small nonprofits to withstand\u201d.
\u00a0
During the second Trump presidency, there will likely to be more to come. Jankowicz told us about a \u201cvideo<\/a> of Trump saying that on day one, if he were reelected, he would ban the terms mis- and disinformation, ban the government from funding any research of disinformation, and he\u2019d instruct the DOJ, the Department of Justice, to investigate anyone involved with this censorship\u201d. And after his re-election, \u201cTrump, Musk, and Marc Andreessen, who\u2019s a tech investor, have all reshared this video\u201d [\u2026] It\u2019s not just putting pressure on these academics and researchers. It could become a matter of the scary way\u201d. In an episode<\/a> of Alyssa Milano\u2019s podcast, \u2018Sorry Not Sorry\u2019 (aired in June), Jankowicz was asked if she believed we now live in a post-truth era or if the truth still matters. She responded that truth means we perhaps don\u2019t always have the answer and have different opinions, but \u201cwe still share that reality\u201d. In the light of recent developments and increasing divisions, does Jankowicz still believe in this \u2018shared reality\u2019? She confessed, that the question was \u201ca hard one \u2026 especially given the political realities in in the United States right now there and I don\u2019t say this as a partisan: there are the majority of the Republican party and frankly some Democratic voters as well who voted a split ticket \u2013 seem to either be subscribed to a different version of reality or they just don\u2019t care about the lies and are putting their own self-interest interest above the truth. And that\u2019s really worrisome to me\u201d.
\u00a0
The question now becomes \u201chow do you educate people who just don\u2019t seem to care that someone is lying and maybe they maybe they don\u2019t need to be educated but it’s about kind of returning to a shared set of values which I think have been totally flipped on their head by Trump. The normalization of lying, the normalization of the sort of racist, sexist rhetoric that he prefers. Nine, ten years ago, all of that would have been shocking to us. And now we don\u2019t even blink an eye\u201d. It is still important \u201cto have the kind of base idea about what is reality. And nobody can escape from that but it seems to be harder and harder to do that and we maybe switch from a you know rational approach to information to a trust approach and but I don’t have a solution\u201d. Considering the threat that Trump poses, what are the global repercussions of this trend? To Jankowicz, Trump\u2019s rhetoric \u201ccreated a permission structure for other would-be autocrats around the world. And we saw this during his first term as well. It empowered Orb\u00e1n, it empowered Modi, it empowered Bolsonaro. I mean, who knows what generation of Trump wannabes are coming down the pike in Europe or elsewhere?\u201d. This sort of permission structure, Jankowicz adds, \u201cwill replicate itself around the world particularly as other autocratic leaders are raised up in the image of Trump\u201d.
\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Responsibility of Very Large Online Platforms (VLOP:s)<\/strong>
<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

We were curious what Jankowicz had to say both in terms of the role of social media and the relationship between a lot of fact-checking and disinformation initiatives with big tech. To her, \u201cit just feels like a lost cause, honestly, because Musk has created this race to the bottom for the tech companies where he has decimated what Twitter used to be so much that if Zuckerberg or any of the other tech executives just put a modicum of effort forward, it looks like they\u2019re doing a really great job\u201d. Users on all platforms have suffered in declining trust and safety as these companies have \u201crolled back a lot of their policies on disinformation, even disinformation that harms public health and public safety or directly denies the result of an election\u201d.
\u00a0
The problem is algorithmic amplification. This answer can be found in the formula: \u201cthe more enraging, the more emotional the content, the more engaging the content\u201d. This leads \u201cto people posting things that are either fact-free or light on facts, or are just emotional narratives meant to drive people to like, share, comment, and push that up further in kind of the virality of the algorithm. They\u2019re doing this knowingly\u201d. Another blow is the restriction of \u201caccess to data by third-party organizations\u201d. One example is the monetization of API (\u2018Application Programming Interface\u2019) by X, obstructing large-scale research into the platform combined with threats of prosecution. But other platforms aren\u2019t better: \u201cFacebook killed CrowdTangle, which was the social listening service that we were able to use on Facebook and Instagram. TikTok\u2019s data access has always been poor. So nothing has changed too much there\u201d. The proximity of Musk and Trump, branded by Jankowicz\u2019s friend and colleague Dr. Julie Posetti as the \u2018bro-ligarchy<\/a>\u2019, can be likened to Russia, where media ownership and political loyalty systematically are amalgamated.
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
The \u201csymbiosis between fact-checking organizations and of disinformation researchers and the platforms\u201d had always made Jankowicz feel\u00a0 \u201ca little bit uncomfortable\u201d. Plenty of \u201corganizations around the world in high-risk environments have their lifeline through Facebook\u201d but \u201csometimes you wonder if they\u2019re going to be as critical as they need to be of the platforms or potentially find themselves out of a grant that is going to be funding their work for many years\u201d. Another example was the partnership between the Atlantic Council and Facebook<\/a> aiming at preventing abuse of the platform during elections. Again, Jankowicz has \u201cthe same worry when there is that special kind of relationship and the access to data isn\u2019t being made available to everyone, that, you know, perhaps you’re not as critical as you might be otherwise\u201d.
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
Elon Musk\u2019s grotesque remarks<\/a> related to the racist riots in England in the summer of 2024 (and the push back against such harmful and inciting comments that came from EU officials) were defended by vice-president elect Vance\u2019s threat to withdraw support from NATO<\/a> if Europe tries to regulate Musk\u2019s platforms. In light of this we were curious about Jankowicz\u2019 opinion on legislation like the EU Digital Services Act<\/a> (DSA).
\u00a0
To Jankowicz, such regulations will create a more civil internet: \u201cI think from what I understand the Republicans view the DSA and certain other regimes that have been introduced, in particular the Online Safety Act in the UK<\/a> and the exact same name of the same bill in Australia<\/a>, although different provisions, they view that as draconian anti-free speech law \u2026 when in reality, what it\u2019s doing is empowering more people to speak. Because if platforms have a responsibility to deal with racist content, terrorist content, sexist content that already goes against their terms of service anyway, then we\u2019re going to have a more civil internet where people can actually speak their minds\u201d. Considering the current development, Jankowicz encourages the EU to stand strong and thinks even Musk \u201cwould be silly to withdraw\u201d from the EU market despite his ongoing threats against European lawmakers<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A gendered (dis-)information war about identities?<\/strong>
<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Considering that political mobilization during the US presidential elections and conversations thereafter ran along gendered lines (such as the current rise of the 4B movement<\/a> in a Western context) we were interested in Jankowicz\u2019s view on the matter. Her book \u201cHow to Be a Woman Online: Surviving Abuse and Harassment and How to Fight Back\u201d<\/em> (2022) could serve as inspiration as she battled these issues firsthand. She told us that she was on her way to a conference organized by the EU External Action Service, \u201cIdentity-Based Disinformation in FIMI: countering the weaponisation of who we are<\/a>\u201d where phenomena such as gendered disinformation<\/a> were going to be addressed. In the US, and particularly during the presidential elections, \u201cmisogyny was still very, very, very strong\u201d and \u201cthe manosphere played a huge part\u201d with figures such as Andrew Tate exercising huge influence on conversations happening among young people. The disturbing fact is that such conversations \u201creplicate online when there are no barriers and no consequences\u201d. So what does Jankowicz recommend against growing gender polarization online?
\u00a0
\u201cIn the face of the platforms not doing very much, because they\u2019ve never really done very much for women, and in an environment where this sort of thing is becoming normalized, the only thing that I can see to do and this is incredibly depressing but it\u2019s to teach women how to better protect themselves online and I \u2013 do not get me wrong \u2013 I do not believe the onus should fall on women to protect themselves, but if we are going to maintain or gain ground in making sure that our ideas are heard it\u2019s the first thing that we have to do. And that\u2019s why my second book is all about online safety. It needs to be updated now because of Musk and what he\u2019s done to the internet\u201d.
\u00a0
There is a continued need to \u201cpressure tech platforms to treat women like equal citizens online. Because right now we are second-class citizens. I feel pretty firmly about that. And bills like the Online Safety Act in the UK and Australia\u2019s version which preceded the UK\u2019s are quite good I think in balancing the free speech implications of hate speech and misogynistic speech online but it\u2019s still something that not enough governments are talking about and tackling\u201d. One key area Jankowicz is deeply concerned about is deep fake pornography since it demonstrates that \u201cwe\u2019re going to repeat all the same mistakes that we made when tech was booming and we\u2019re not going to think proactively about how these technologies might be used to harm\u201d. Deep fake pornography \u201chas exploded and been used against women, almost entirely women and young girls and teachers as well. So I don\u2019t think it is a very bright future in the next couple of years, particularly the resurgence or explosion in manosphere rhetoric that Trump exemplifies\u201d.
\u00a0
In a choice between returning to more analogue modes of communication and staying online, Jankowicz tends \u201ctoward giving women the armor they need to continue to exist in spaces that are dominated by men whether that is at a table that’s a national security discussion or something like Twitter\u201d (which she now has left for Bluesky<\/a>). Her book was about going through \u201cjust very basic online security and operational security steps that I think every woman needs to know. And when I was going through the worst of what I was going through, this former intelligence official who was helping me with personal security and scanning the dark web for threats against me said it\u2019s really good that you do what you do and you\u2019re an expert in what you\u2019re an expert in because if you hadn\u2019t taken all these precautions ahead of time, you would have been hacked you would have been doxxed even earlier. Your personal information and pictures would be out there like people were actively trying to find nude images of me\u201d.
\u00a0
For women it is important to recognize \u201cwhat the risks are so that you can be prepared for them. Because I think a lot of women, maybe they know and they recognize it, but they\u2019re not necessarily prepared in all the ways that they could be\u201d. One such rule is to preserve content \u201cthat would have helped with legal cases and things like that\u201d, pointing at the importance of digital archiving. The risk is that we are loosing a generation of younger women who chose to opt out being in public: \u201cIt means that our positions and our lived experiences aren\u2019t going to be represented to the public if women are self-selecting out of public-facing positions. That\u2019s the real implication\u201d. Jankowicz remains undeterred here: \u201cAnd it\u2019s one of the reasons I have felt so strongly about continuing to hold my ground online, even though I wish that I could just turn it off sometimes. But I\u2019m not going to let the bad guys win\u201d.\u00a0
\u00a0
But the entire topic extends also to intersectional identities facing increased online abuse. The very idea of diversity is attacked by \u201cdomestic disinformers and abusers\u201d, but also \u201cused by adversaries of democracy who look at the diverse societies that we have and see cleavages. And in some cases, those cleavages are cleavages that we\u2019ve created ourselves and not healed ourselves, like racism in the United States, for instance\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is Sweden a good example in the fight against disinformation?<\/strong>
<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

To Jankowicz, Sweden\u2019s informational preparedness in our current times stands out as a positive: \u201cyou also have a population that is better primed, that trusts in their government a little bit more, a lot more than the United States does or other Western democracies do. And I think that matters.\u201d Information literacy can be seen as part of societal resilience, even if \u201cit’s hard to compare a population that is more homogeneous and smaller to a diverse population like the United States. But you\u2019ve got really strong media, you\u2019ve got trust in government and that means that putting an agency like that [The Psychological Defence Agency MPF] at the helm of these efforts is likely to bear more than it would in some other countries. But I think they’re [MPF] admirable.\u201d
\u00a0
Sweden, Finland and Estonia in particular \u201care viewed as, rightly so, as kind of the pinnacle of counter-disinformation work, but I don’t think it’s as plug-and-play for other democracies as people may think it is\u201d. There are many lessons to be learned, \u201cstep one is getting, working on that trust, which has fallen so far far in the United States\u201d.\u00a0 There, it wasn\u2019t even possible to agree upon policy coordination against disinformation. Trust building has to start with removing gridlocks in Congress, where \u201cthe opposite party has demonized the other for so long in the United States that people see, in particular, the federal government is just not responsive to their needs at all\u201d. And it\u2019s not realistic to legislate good governance, \u201cwe can’t fact check our way out of the face\u201d.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Community-based responses<\/strong>
<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

’Throughout our interview, we returned to the question of how to mitigate the ongoing information disorder. To Fojo and its project to boost fact-checking and verification skills in journalism, it was important to ask Jankowicz about her opinion: \u201cI think it\u2019s hugely important for journalists and I think it plays an important role for the public as well to understand that fact-checking is part of the process of reporting out stories. And I think more journalistic organizations need to pull back the curtain of how that process works and earn readers and viewers and listeners trust\u201d. However, previously there was a tendency \u201cto rely on fact-checking as the panacea to the disinformation problem\u201d and those engaged in these practices frequently seemed to preach to the choir, \u201cit can’t be the sole solution. It has to be part of a set of solutions\u201d.
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
Jankowicz suggests it is in civil society where fact-checking or the broader ecosystem of \u201caccountability projects\u201d should live since \u201ccivil society organizations [CSOs], when they are local, have a better understanding of what makes their community tick\u201d. For example, the ASP\u2019s information literacy efforts will not be effective if they are \u201cparachuting in from Washington to Idaho to do this stuff. We\u2019re going to find a local partner that we\u2019re going to do it with. And we\u2019ll design the curriculum hand in hand with them because what appeals to somebody in Idaho is going to be very different than what appeals to somebody in West Virginia, what appeals to somebody in Florida\u201d. However, \u201cit is harder to do it that way rather than just a plug and play parachute curriculum\u201d.
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
But it is also about strengthening individual resilience in a volatile information environment. Jankowicz pointed at two recent studies: one in which AI-technology (a chatbot called DebunkBot<\/a>) made people question their own conspiratorial beliefs and another where participants were inoculated<\/a> against emotional manipulation techniques. To understand these techniques makes us all better equipped: \u201cIf you\u2019re getting really mad or worked up about something, whether that\u2019s positively or negatively, you might be being manipulated. And just having that awareness about how you\u2019re consuming that information, whether it\u2019s, you know, through mainstream media, fringe media, social media, understanding that, and then doing a little bit of legwork on the back end, seeing if anybody else is reporting that story the same way, seeing if you can find another source for it, doing a Google image search to see if an image has been misattributed, all this sort of stuff slows you down a little bit and makes your media consumption so that you\u2019re not just kind of reacting emotionally to that. So that gives me hope\u201d.
\u00a0
However Jankowicz, not least after the US elections, also thinks \u201cless about technological solutions or new social media platforms or any reliance on the platforms at all\u201d but rather \u201cabout this kind of community-based approach and getting back to basics and putting people face-to-face across tables to talk about things … that’s not a scalable solution necessarily, but it\u2019s one that I think we need to return to\u201d. One example that strikes her is a social platform developed to boost local community building in Vermont (\u201ca very weird but cool state\u201d), the Front Porch Forum<\/a>. The point with such initiatives would be that \u201cwe can return that humanity and that local based connection to these interactions. And it\u2019s just about figuring out the right way to do it for each community\u201d.
\u00a0
A lot depends on the restoring of interpersonal relations. It is difficult to pick up an argument when people display a conspiratorial mindset or \u201cvery entrenched political views that are very different than my own\u201d. If they are close, Jankowicz just tries \u201cto approach them with love and say, this is why I believe what I believe. Can we find some common ground here? And when you do it with somebody you love and you\u2019re not getting anywhere, it’s really frustrating. It’s frustrating for both sides, I think\u201d. It is here a Chatbot like DebunkBot comes in, a \u201cneutral arbiter of AI is one that we should be exploiting more. But of course, there\u2019s a lot of baked-in biases in large language models, so I\u2019m not sure that it\u2019s the best, foolproof solution but worth exploring\u201d.
\u00a0
Community-building requires meeting on the level and parting on the square, whereas \u201cmuch of what happens on the internet happens because people are so desensitized and don\u2019t see a human behind the screen\u201d. Jankowicz suggests we should be more open towards those we meet online and connect on issues that unite us: \u201cand so when we talk about community building and town halls or like civic kind of gatherings like that, I do think that it reminds people of what we have in common\u201d, even in strongly contested areas such as immigration since many of us share existential experiences. The crucial effort depends on \u201cre-injecting humanity as much as possible, even if you have to do it in this kind of digital ecosystem, the ways that I\u2019ve had to do can be really fruitful. It just is really hard to scale, especially as an individual\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Diversity and disinformation<\/strong>
<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

In the last part of our conversation, we returned to the question of identity-based disinformation, not least since Quran burnings<\/a> in Sweden and the campaign against Swedish social services (\u201cLVU-campaign<\/a>\u201d) have revealed how minority-issues can be abused to stoke societal tensions. Information trust in society has to move from top-town vertical to more inclusive bottom-up horizontal approaches, it seems. To address such challenges, Jankowicz referred to studies by communications scholar and sociologist Damon Centola<\/a> who extensively has researched the similarities between contagion and the spread of (reliable) information. Social change doesn\u2019t only happen when new ideas are induced top-down (for instance through community leaders) but when disseminated on different points of social interaction. Thus, to build information trust in vulnerable communities (or in general, where localized disinformation is prevalent) would require a more comprehensive approach.
\u00a0
So what can we do to remove institutional blindness among many actors in the information ecosystem ranging from government agencies to academia and newsrooms? Jankowicz admits that she has no good answer to that, since a lot of her work has focused on policy advice. However it is important to her to shift towards \u201cthe bootstrap civil society work\u201d such as impactful training where you meet audiences whose behaviour actually might change as a result. More out-of-the-box approaches are needed \u201cbecause the slate is so blank we are we have to start from scratch and it\u2019ll be, in a way it\u2019s exciting, right? It’s an opportunity to see what might work\u201d. Placemaking is important in our digitally interconnected societies and \u201cgetting back to basics\u201d might for instance imply \u201clibraries as kind of the central space in communities and there\u2019s some interesting media literacy research that\u2019s been done via libraries as well\u201d.\u00a0 To Jankowicz it is crucial to \u201cempower local organizations rather than kind of a top-down approach either from the government or from you know media organizations\u201d but it will take research and hard work to build such communities.
\u00a0
To close, let\u2019s return to the Fleming-palace, in the shadows of the royal castle, where we had our conversation. Around 1900 it turned into Stockholm\u2019s main telegraph station: a Swedish hub for the first global electronic communication network. Today it is a coworking space for knowledge-based companies and organizations living in the digital age. Maybe it is places like this, where people meet and exchange ideas in reality, where change can start towards a more civilized societal discourse.
\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n


The information laundering cycle<\/strong> is a process by which false or misleading information is spread and legitimized. Here\u2019s how it typically works:
\u00a0
Origin<\/strong>: A fringe blogger or a less credible source makes a sensational or false claim.

Amplification<\/strong>: This claim is picked up by fringe media outlets and shared on social media platforms.

Mainstreaming<\/strong>: As the claim gains traction, it is picked up by more mainstream media outlets (with a pipeline from low-quality alternative to high-quality established media), giving it a veneer of credibility.

Political Use<\/strong>: Politicians or public figures may then reference these claims, further legitimizing them and using them for political gain.

Institutional Pressure<\/strong>: Investigations or lawsuits may be launched based on these claims, putting pressure on institutions and organizations to respond or retreat. This cycle allows false information to gain credibility and influence public opinion, making it challenging to combat disinformation effectively.

The information laundering cycle<\/strong>. Adapted from ASP and Nina Jankowicz with assistance from Microsoft Copilot.<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
\nSummary of part 2 (prepared by Microsoft Copilot, checked by Andreas \u00d6nnerfors)<\/strong>\n\u00a0\nNina Jankowicz, a global disinformation expert, shares her experiences and insights in an interview with Kaia Nisser and Andreas \u00d6nnerfors from Fojo Media Institute, Sweden.\n\u00a0<\/strong>\nKey Points:<\/strong>\n\nThreat of a Second Trump Presidency<\/strong>:\nJankowicz discusses the potential impact of a second Trump term on disinformation efforts, highlighting the \"censorship-industrial complex\" narrative pushed by the right.\nShe expresses concern over the normalization of lying and the erosion of shared reality in the U.S.\n\nResponsibility of Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs)<\/strong>:\nThe role of social media companies in combating disinformation is examined, with criticism of their current efforts.\nJankowicz points out the problematic relationship between fact-checking organizations and tech platforms, which may hinder critical assessments.\n\nGendered Disinformation and Online Safety<\/strong>:\nThe conversation addresses the gendered nature of online abuse and disinformation. Jankowicz emphasizes the need for women to protect themselves online and calls for tech platforms to treat women as equal citizens.\n\nGlobal Repercussions and Autocratic Trends<\/strong>:\nThe influence of Trump\u2019s rhetoric on global autocratic leaders is discussed, with examples from Hungary, India, and Brazil.\nJankowicz warns of the potential rise of similar leaders in Europe and elsewhere.\n\nLegislation and Regulation<\/strong>:\nThe EU Digital Services Act (DSA) and other regulatory efforts are seen as steps towards a more civil internet.\nJankowicz supports these regulations despite opposition from some U.S. political figures.\n\nCommunity-Based Responses<\/strong>:\nThe importance of local, community-based approaches to combating disinformation is highlighted. Jankowicz advocates for building individual resilience and fostering face-to-face interactions to counteract the effects of disinformation.\n\nSweden\u2019s Role in Disinformation Preparedness:\n<\/strong>Sweden is praised for its strong media and government trust, which contribute to its effective counter-disinformation efforts.\nJankowicz notes that while Sweden\u2019s model may not be directly applicable to other countries, there are valuable lessons to be learned.\n\nDiversity and Disinformation:<\/strong>\nThe document discusses how identity-based disinformation exploits societal divisions. Jankowicz calls for more inclusive, bottom-up approaches to building information trust in diverse communities.\n\nConclusion:\n<\/strong>The conversation with Nina Jankowicz underscores the multifaceted nature of the fight against disinformation, emphasizing the need for robust regulatory frameworks, community-based initiatives, and greater online safety measures, especially for women. It also highlights the global implications of disinformation and the importance of maintaining a shared reality in democratic societies<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In this second part of our conversation with Nina Jankowicz we focused on what possibly lies ahead of us in the light of the incoming US \u201cbroligarchy\u201d committed to disrupt, dismantle and discredit work against disinformation in the public interest.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":3514,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3513","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-fordjupning"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fojo.se\/verify\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3513","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fojo.se\/verify\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fojo.se\/verify\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fojo.se\/verify\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fojo.se\/verify\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3513"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/fojo.se\/verify\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3513\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3602,"href":"https:\/\/fojo.se\/verify\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3513\/revisions\/3602"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fojo.se\/verify\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3514"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fojo.se\/verify\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3513"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fojo.se\/verify\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3513"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fojo.se\/verify\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3513"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}