Response to interpellation 2023/24:765 on measures to stop secret accounts on social media

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Mattias Vepsä has asked me what measures I and the government are taking to stop secret accounts, so-called troll factories, on social media.

Initially, I want to emphasize that all of us who participate in public debate, especially those of us who work politically, have a great responsibility to, based on our extensive and constitutionally protected freedom of expression and information, contribute to objectivity and clarity regarding messages and senders. This applies regardless of in which forums the debate is conducted, including social media.

When it comes to what Mattias Vepsä raises about democracy being under pressure from both domestic and foreign influence operations, I can state that it is known that there is a broader constitutional threat from various actors aimed at weakening democratic society.

Such a threat consists of the dissemination of false information, rumors, disinformation, and propaganda glorifying violence. It contributes to increasing contradictions in society and to eroding trust in society's central institutions. It can also contribute to an increased threat against various representatives of society.

The government takes this threat very seriously and has taken a number of measures. Increasing resilience against disinformation is a central part of the new strategy against violent extremism and terrorism that the government decided on in January this year.

The Media Authority has recently been tasked to work long-term to strengthen the public's media and information literacy, and a national campaign will be designed in close cooperation with a large number of actors in the MIK Sverige network.

The Psychological Defence Agency was established in 2022 to specifically identify, analyze, and be able to provide support in countering improper information influence and other misleading information directed at Sweden or, for that matter, Swedish interests. During 2023, the agency had, for example, the mandate to strengthen the ability to resist improper information influence against Swedish social services as well as improper information influence directed at Sweden in connection with the burning of religious scriptures.

Even within the EU, various initiatives have been taken in the area. For several years, there has been a European code of conduct regarding disinformation that many online platform services have joined. Through the regulation on a single market for digital services, the so-called DSA Regulation, there is an obligation for the largest platform services to assess and manage risks regarding, among other things, disinformation. In May, Council conclusions on the resilience of democracy were adopted to protect electoral processes against foreign influence.

A decision was also recently made regarding a regulation on transparency and targeting concerning political advertising, which aims to make it easier for voters to recognize political advertising, understand who is behind it, and know if they have received a targeted advertisement from a political actor.

Finally, the work against disinformation is carried out most effectively by spreading correct and objective information. This means that we who participate in the public debate should lead by example. We who are politically active all need to contribute to maintaining objectivity and transparency in opinion-building.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer!

It is a recurring debate that we have had here in the chamber when it comes to both secret influence operations and the threat to democracy, especially from the far-right, which during the spring has stepped up its work to intimidate and silence associations and people who take a stand on various issues but also the political parties.

The origin of this debate concerns both what we saw on May 1st, with the attacks that occurred across the country at May Day demonstrations and public meetings, and what was revealed on TV4 and in the documentary Kalla fakta, which showed that one party distinguishes itself in Sweden by having registered a number of secret accounts. How many is unclear. We do not have the possibility of insight, but we know through the reporting that they have been a supporting part in an influence operation to both create images of how reality looks and influence people's sense of both reality and the political debate.

This has in turn led to a storm on the internet and social media against individual party representatives - politicians here in Sweden's Riksdag but also at other levels - who receive the hate that has been whipped up through these troll factories.

We recognize the methodology from Russia and the Russian troll factories. It is about trying to influence, spread disinformation and undermine our democratic system because they have a different agenda and want something else with Sweden, Swedish democracy and our security policy. They want to promote their Russian interests.

The methodology is the same, and that is why I address this question to the Minister for Justice today: What more is being done? What initiatives are being taken moving forward to put a stop to secret troll factories and secret accounts on social media?

We can agree that social media has contributed to the development of democracy, but we have a problem when it happens in the shadows, when we do not know who is behind various influence campaigns and when it is completely impossible to find out who has spread the information and why and what underlying interests exist regarding posts and campaigns that gain distribution on social media platforms and which are targeted broadly.

I note that a number of different proposals are presented in the response, but also a number of different measures. We agree on these measures. We also agree to update the new strategy, which is to counter violent extremism and terrorism. The Social Democrats have for several years been involved in pushing through legislation to tackle precisely those extreme forces that wish us all harm.

I still thought I would start this debate by asking a rather simple question. One can boil down the answer and extract what is the main point. I think, at least, that many of the regulations, rule tightenings, and agreements that have been implemented at the European level and the conversations that have been held here in Sweden require transparency. In order to see that advertising targeted in social media has a political sender, it is required that the account in some way has an open user.

With this introduction, I want to ask the question again: What is the government doing? What does the government intend to do to access the secret accounts that, in this case, are controlled from the Sweden Democrats' office?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mattias Vepsä, for the opportunity to discuss these issues today!

If we broaden the perspective to the events of the past year, I agree that it has been about a latent threat from violent extremism. This is what I am aiming at when I speak about activities threatening the constitution. Here, of course, are the right-wing extremism and the violent Islamism, but also the autonomous left, which in recent years has been less prominent than the other two but has also, over time, been a potential threat in terms of violent extremism. I believe it is extremely important that when we direct the state's collective power against that type of threat, we also say that it is a violent extremism that seriously constitutes a threat to the constitution.

We have also had a broader discussion during the spring about the conditions for participating in political meetings. This can also be seen against the background of the EU election movement that we have just left behind. This concerns partly the violent attacks that occurred against a political meeting here in the Stockholm area during April, and partly on a couple of occasions in connection with the May 1st celebrations where persons who, it appears—preliminary investigations are ongoing—are in the extreme right have allegedly used violence in connection with political meetings.

Furthermore, a number of incidents have occurred where public meetings have been interrupted by activists, and in that way, not only silenced political representatives but also made impossible the exchange that we want to characterize our democracy. Citizens should have the opportunity to ask questions and provide views and criticism and direct demands for resignation, but nevertheless do so under a somewhat orderly exchange.

When it comes to the occurrence of anonymous accounts, we have been very clear in our criticism and in how we view this. That was the case this time when that which is linked to Sverigedemokraterna was uncovered, and we have also been that in previous years when it has concerned anonymous accounts that have in various ways been linked to Socialdemokraterna. For my part, I see no room at all for that type of account or other anonymized ways to form opinion from political parties.

I welcome that a discussion is being held on these issues between the parties in the Riksdag. I believe that over time it is crucial for the credibility of the political debate that people know who stands behind a certain message, also in order to be able to counter it and demand accountability in hindsight.

When it comes to the division of labor in this area between the government and the Riksdag, I do not, in itself, exclude that a government can contribute in its decision-making. On the other hand, we have a democratic tradition in Sweden that is very good, namely that the basic rules of the game for our democracy are handled by the parties in the Riksdag.

There are also risks, if I may put it that way, with using the power of the executive branch against, for example, individual parties. We in Sweden have, for very good reasons, tried to avoid this by letting fundamental issues ranging from the conditions for parties' funding to other conditions for the parties' work be handled by the parties in the Riksdag, either in broad parliamentary investigation processes or in committee work.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Madam Speaker! For my part, I think it is an absolutely extraordinary thing that we in the Swedish Riksdag have political parties that agree on democratic principles and working methods that benefit the democratic dialogue and develop our democracy.

The question here concerns when some stand outside the regulatory framework and we others have no clue. But thanks to TV4's Kalla fakta, we have seen in black and white that one of the parliamentary parties, Sverigedemokraterna - the government base's largest party - for several years has worked with anonymous accounts on social media to whip up hate and threats.

This has not only been directed at Members of Parliament or politicians at the regional or municipal level, but during the spring we have also seen that it has been directed at large parts of civil society. Several reports have come from children's and youth organizations, the women's movement, the peace movement, and fundraising organizations that they have received storms of hate when they are out conducting their activities in social media and working so that more people will engage or direct the focus towards racism so that people will stand up for all people's equal value. This has increased.

We know now that these hate storms are suspiciously similar to one another and originate from far-right circles, but they are also fueled by the Sverigedemokraternas communications department. So it is black and white, or however one is to express it when it comes to a television broadcast.

I think it is important for Sweden's Riksdag to be able to demand accountability. When it comes to the Tidö Agreement and the Tidö parties, we cannot demand accountability when it concerns the entire government constellation, because the government, as we know, consists of the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and Liberalerna. Sverigedemokraterna sit outside. But what Sverigedemokraterna decide is also something that the government must comply with.

Regarding how we should behave and how we should express ourselves, it is not more than 48 hours since we – I, my wife, and hundreds of thousands of others in this country, I suspect – woke up to a text message from the Sverigedemokraterna. The text message read: "Do not let TV4's influence operation win the EU election. Vote for Sverigedemokraterna tomorrow." Here we see absolutely clearly and distinctly who is the sender. But we need to reflect on their idea and perception of a media company like TV4 – one of Sweden's largest media companies – which conducts a review according to all the rules of the art, which leans on freedom of the press and freedom of expression, and which does a fantastic job of revealing both the former and the latter. Revelations are not always fun for a politician or for someone who has made a mistake, but this is a free media company that it is claimed has carried out an influence operation.

Influence operation is a term that our counter-terrorism strategy addresses and that our authorities have a responsibility to counter. It concerns influence operations from foreign powers but also from forces within our borders, forces that wish our democracy ill.

The Minister may be asked to respond on how things are going in the government constellation. How are the conversations going after an SMS like this to hundreds of thousands of voters? Is it in line with that we all have a responsibility to spread correct and objective information to one another and our voters?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Both I and the Moderates have been very clear about how we view the occurrence of anonymous accounts. That is also not something the Moderates are working with.

I am old enough that I still have a certain historical perspective on the issues, and therefore I perhaps think that the tones from the Social Democrats in particular ring a bit false.

One of the most notable cases when this misery reached Swedish democracy was when an SSU ombudsman in 2006 had an internet diary under a pseudonym which, among other things, spread false allegations that Fredrik Reinfeldt was a pedophile.

Another example occurred during the 2018 election. It turned out then that there were people who worked for the Socialdemokraterna who had so-called troll accounts on social media. They were, in themselves, reassigned but still got to remain in their jobs when this was revealed.

It has also emerged that local S representatives have spread false information about political opponents in Arabic and primarily on social media. This concerned disinformation that, through external reviews, could be linked to Kuwait.

I have no need to compare one with the other, but I believe that those who are interested in conducting a substantive debate on these issues and in truly nurturing the democratic conversation should also possibly be able to consider a personal responsibility regarding the occurrence of this type of, in my opinion, nonsense in the Swedish democratic conversation.

I can assure Mattias Vepsä that there are straightforward conversations about both the one and the other between the parties as well in a government basis. What I just described was not a government basis, but it was the previous governing party that engaged in this.

When the dust after the election campaign now settles, I believe there are several issues that we have a common interest in discussing, which concern our open, free society and the democratic conversation. There are undoubtedly such issues, and I have raised several of them. Among others, it concerns what we are now talking about, that is, the importance of straightforward and open opinion-forming, especially from political parties, so that as a citizen one knows who is responsible for the message and can evaluate it in a correct way – and also hold them accountable if it is a message one does not agree with.

We also have the broader picture, which is the interrupted and sabotaged meetings that - in and of itself in an open way, one could say - have led to an acidification of the conditions for conducting a democratic open conversation in our country. Then we have, of course, the extremely serious, namely the violence that has been directed against certain political meetings during the months of April and May.

There we naturally have an extraordinarily great, shared responsibility. To begin with, the authorities have a responsibility to find those who are guilty and prosecute them so that those who have committed the crimes can receive their rightful punishment, but we naturally also need, in a close interaction between authorities and political parties, to work with the security around, for example, public gatherings.

I also think, however, that we need to discuss the conditions for our collective opportunities to truly push back the violent extremism that seriously constitutes a constitutional threat to our country.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Madam Speaker! The Minister for Justice says that there are no grounds to make comparisons between the Sweden Democrats' organized and centrally funded, secret troll factory and what individual employees in parties have done over the years - and then two examples are listed. I think it is a rather remarkable way to make just those comparisons.

There is a decisive difference here: the Social Democrats have not run organized troll factories, and nor has SSU run organized troll factories under pseudonyms and via anonymous accounts. If it is the case that an employee has been discovered to have crossed the line, this person has been asked to leave their position.

It has also not been part of an organized strategy to conduct campaigns through secret accounts that play on mistrust towards social services or to register various sites that only deal with whipping up mistrust towards the Swedish social services - which in turn jacks into an international influence campaign that probably derives its power from both Iran and Russia as well as Chinese or other interests, who have a different idea of where Sweden should head democratically.

I think this is remarkable. The Minister of Justice and the government are not just the Tidö parties' minister and government; one is all of Sweden's minister and government. From the Swedish Riksdag and the highest elected representatives, we have a common interest in guaranteeing the safety and security of all people. We shall guarantee the safety and security of all organizations' representatives in their political or organizational roles and work.

I miss the decisiveness that it would have been so simple to show here today. One way to stop secret troll factories is not just to accept a coffee break with a diploma presentation at the Sweden Democrats' communications department but to powerfully say: "Stop! This far but no further! If these accounts are not shut down, we do not have a cooperation."

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! What I said was that I have no need to level or diminish anything by making those types of comparisons, and it is something completely different from what Mattias Vepsä is now saying. I am simply stating that those who have a serious interest in these issues should not turn it into a partisan grievance which, in the end, still boils down to the Social Democrats wanting government power and having difficulty living with the fact that, for example, the Moderaterna are now leading the government.

I mean that we, if we seriously want to take responsibility for our open, free society and ensure good conditions for democratic debate, have good reasons to work for a political conversation without anonymous accounts. We have good reasons to work for political meetings that are not interrupted, regardless of what good reasons one as an activist thinks one has for doing so. It is admittedly a completely open and transparent format, but it has very negative consequences for the open political conversation in our democracy.

We shall, of course, with the full power of the state, collectively, push back against those who use violence to silence others, regardless of whether the violence comes from the far-right, the autonomous left, or the violence-oriented Islamist side. I have no interest whatsoever in making the government a narrow thing for a certain part of the political field in Sweden in that respect – on the contrary. There are truly genuine public interests here, and the government nurtures them very tenderly.

Then I believe it is extremely important that the Riksdag is the most important arena when it comes to the rules of the game for our democracy, especially when it concerns our parties. There are many examples, which we do not want to follow, where one so to speak mobilizes the entire executive government power against individual parties. That is nothing we shall engage in in Sweden. But let us gladly continue a constructive conversation in a Riksdag context about how we can nurture good conditions for open and free political debate!

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)