Response to interpellation 2023/24:778 on fake accounts undermining democratic discourse
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M emphasizes that the government's core task is to defend democracy and ensure openness 1. M argues that Sweden has a strong foundation with high trust and free media 2. M has taken practical measures, such as funds for Brottsofferjouren, to support journalists who are subjected to threats 1 2 3. M emphasizes that journalists must be able to scrutinize power without risk of self-censorship 3. M argues that it is the Minister for Justice's responsibility to handle issues regarding state party funding 2. M argues that the government's work signals the importance of free media and a balanced public service 3. M advocates for increased transparency and that political parties are open with their communication 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Madam Speaker! Lawen Redar has asked me what I and the government intend to do to strengthen democratic dialogue and counter hate, incitement, threats, and disinformation. She has further asked whether I, within my area of responsibility, intend to act against parties that receive state party funding and simultaneously counteract the values of democracy, and what is my plan to counter disinformation campaigns digitally.
One of the government's core tasks is to defend Swedish democracy and ensure that our society is characterized by openness and respect for fundamental human freedoms and rights. Everyone who works politically or who otherwise participates in opinion-forming has a great responsibility, based on our extensive and constitutionally protected freedom of expression and information, to contribute to objectivity and clarity regarding messages and senders.
Within the EU, several initiatives have been taken in this area. For several years, there has been a code of conduct regarding disinformation, and many platform services have joined it. Through the Digital Services Act, DSA, requirements are now also being introduced for the largest platform services to risk assess and risk manage regarding, among other things, disinformation. Recently, a new regulation on transparency and targeting regarding political advertising was also decided. It 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.
Media and information literacy is a key knowledge for strengthening the public's ability to identify and evaluate different types of messages and senders and to understand how the flow of information works and can be used, even for hidden intentions. The Media Authority has therefore been tasked to carry out a broad and long-term initiative in Sweden to strengthen the public's media and information literacy. The intention is, among other things, to increase society's resilience against disinformation in the long term.
To contribute to the open society and free formation of opinion and to build society's resilience against disinformation, free and independent media are central. Therefore, the work to counter hate and threats directed at journalists is important. On May 2, the Government decided to task the Media Agency with following the issue and calling for dialogue with relevant actors. The Government has also allocated funds to Brottsofferjouren to establish a national contact point for journalists who need support or protection.
Threats and violence against elected officials are system-threatening and risk, in the long run, facilitating criminal activity, silencing democratic dialogue, and undermining democracy. Sweden's municipalities and regions have therefore received grants from the government since 2016 to strengthen the systematic work of municipalities and regions regarding threats and hate directed at elected officials. A government memorandum (Ds 2024:10) with proposals to strengthen protection against threats and violence for municipal and regional council members has also been referred recently.
Lawen Redar (S)
Mr. Speaker! TV4's investigation of the Sweden Democrats in the program Kalla Fakta reveals that the party operates a so-called troll factory. This means that as a political method, they use anonymous accounts on social media to spread disinformation and attack political opponents.
The Sweden Democrats have previously denied the existence of troll factories, but the investigation has clearly shown close links between the party and the factory's activities.
The purpose, Mr. Speaker, of having anonymous accounts as a political method is to influence public opinion, enable disinformation and propaganda, and ultimately mislead citizens regarding their perception of reality. Over time, it can lead to a weakening of trust in authorities and media or in interpersonal contact, and then we get a strongly challenged democracy.
Unreliable information and political propaganda have increased in recent years. It has contributed to a weakening of democratic institutions in many countries. The development is most evident on the other side of the Atlantic but has already had consequences on our continent. This is also unfortunately shown by the result of the latest European Parliament election.
Social media plays a major role because posts there spread faster than traditional media. The information does not adhere to any form of journalistic system, and the capacity for dissemination is unlimited. Furthermore, the logic of algorithms rewards a high tone and confrontation. This is, of course, exploited by populist and extremist movements that use anonymous accounts to spread their agenda and undermine democratic processes.
Mr. Speaker! When the revelation was published, it was met with powerful statements from government representatives and the opposition. Party leaders and not least the Prime Minister expressed that the information was outrageous and that it was dangerous. Representatives said that anonymous accounts incite hatred and that it is completely unacceptable.
The government's reaction could have been met with powerful measures. A strong democracy must, of course, examine itself. What rules of the game should it have? How do we achieve a democratic debate and increased participation? Who is met with hatred, abuse, and threats, and what does that ultimately do to the breadth of the conversation, freedom of speech, and participation in democracy?
Unfortunately, the government's actions can be summarized as: caution. It is obvious that they have a very difficult time balancing maintaining their coalition cooperation and acting against anti-democratic methods. I cannot interpret it in any other way now that I hear a democratically minded Minister for Culture answering the questions she does.
I know that issues concerning democratic participation, freedom of speech, and debate on equal terms are issues that the Minister for Culture cares about, but it is also a matter of moving from words to action.
I wonder what the minister intends to do within their area of responsibility towards parties that receive state party funding and at the same time counteract the values of democracy. This question has not yet been answered, and therefore I submit the question again to the minister.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! Democracy in Sweden stands, despite everything, on a strong foundation with high voter turnout and high interpersonal trust. We also have a great interest in politics among the population. We have well-functioning and legally secure institutions, and we have strong and independent media. In Sweden, we also have strong laws in favor of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, as well as a tradition of journalistic self-regulation over a hundred years old.
All of this is a fundamental pillar in the democratic society that we together over centuries have tried to build up here in Sweden. It provides the conditions for a combination of being able to have both independent and free media and a strong public service. We need vitality in everything that monitors power, and therefore it is so important to ensure that the possibility for free media is not restricted.
It is also from that perspective that I and the government have presented different types of measures during the recent period. It concerns measures aimed at hate and threats against journalists and against free journalism, and the Media Agency has been given the assignment to gather actors who work with these issues to obtain a knowledge base regarding how things actually look today. It also concerns funds for Brottsofferjouren to enable a contact point specifically for journalists, which is also something that has been requested by the industry.
That is also why we within the media policy have worked for a strong public service. I have just received the investigation and look forward to continuing the work to produce a government bill regarding it. We shall also be able to have free commercial media, which is what the changed media support that we have established from January 1st aims for.
The Chairman of the Committee argues that I have not answered the question regarding state party funding. That is quite correct; I did not touch upon it in my opening remarks, as it is not something that falls under my area of responsibility. It is the Minister for Justice who handles the party funding, and therefore it is not an area that I am to touch upon in my answer. It is also the case that state party financing also belongs to this house. This falls under the Riksdag's area, and it is agencies under the Riksdag that are responsible for it.
Within the framework of my area of responsibility, the government carries out a long series of measures that primarily concern being able to work for a high and more equal voter turnout. Among other things, the parties are allocated funds for special information initiatives, and these funds were also distributed this year. A total of 11.9 million kronor were distributed based on the size of the parties. The parties have previously reported the use of these funds to Kammarkollegiet. There has been no reason to look at this or see if any further follow-up is needed to examine in what ways the funds have been used.
It may be that the need has arisen; it is too early to say. But I do not rule out that that which falls within the scope of my area may need to be further scrutinized.
Lawen Redar (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Culture, for the answer!
It is of the utmost importance that one does not take democracy for granted. The election result in the European Parliament election here in Sweden shows a very worrying trend, and that is that voter turnout has actually fallen. Many blame this on a long weekend preceded by our national day, which is a red day. However, it cannot be the only explanatory model, but we also see a clear class dimension in the turnout. Socioeconomics has an impact on participation and perhaps the feeling of marginalization.
There are also other worrying trends that need to be highlighted in this context. Just as the Minister for Culture here explains, I have participated in the work of the parliamentary public service committee. I am concerned that there is now a proposal which, unfortunately, will weaken the financial conditions for the companies moving forward, which in itself can contribute to the common ground for societal information and scrutiny potentially being weakened. The platform that Swedes stand on for acquiring knowledge, scrutiny, understanding of society, and the Swedish language could be weakened.
Another worrying trend is, of course, threats against journalists. Some measures have been taken by the current government there, which is very good, but it is quite obvious that if one as a journalist scrutinizes certain subject areas or a certain political party, one meets a resistance that is quite remarkable.
I mean that there is no room to relativize the anti-democratic method that the Sverigedemokraterna use. Not even when they are scrutinized and exposed has the party backed down. They have not taken the consequences or reformulated a way forward. No other Swedish party could have been exposed with this working method and gotten away without consequences. What the Sverigedemokraterna – the government's coalition partner – do is launch a verbal attack against Swedish media with the formulation that one is subjected to a "gigantic, domestic influence operation from the united left-liberal establishment."
The Minister for Culture, who is ultimately responsible for media policy issues and the conditions for journalists, needs to act, I believe. If it is fully acceptable to assert untruths about media and journalistic work and to attack individual journalists, the consequence could be that journalists cease to scrutinize parties or political issues, because the price for doing so becomes too high.
The question is significantly larger than the Culture Minister's coalition partners. It is about what kind of Sweden we want, what the political debate should look like, and under what conditions it should be allowed to develop. Here, the journalists' investigative work is of immense importance.
Therefore, I wonder if the Minister for Culture intends to take further action to strengthen the journalistic mission to create the security in the work that journalists must be able to develop in Sweden if they are to manage the task. As a journalist today, one can probably expect to be met with hate, harassment, and threats on social media if one scrutinizes certain subject areas or the Sweden Democrats as a party. As we all know, social media is often in the phone in the trouser pocket, and it comes very close when the wheels go spinning.
My final question to the Minister for Culture is whether she intends to reassure Swedish journalists that their investigative work is of paramount importance for democracy to be able to endure.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! I fully and completely share the member's view on the importance of upholding our democratic rights and that they are closely linked with the possibility to also be able to touch upon, scrutinize and express oneself on all subjects, even the uncomfortable ones.
Journalists are an incredibly important professional group, but not the only professional group exposed to the types of mockery or threats and hate that make one risk self-censoring or falling into silence. It is, however, clear that threats and crimes against journalists do not constitute an attack only on the individual person, but it is an attack on society, on the whole, on democracy if you will, and the risk is that it leads to different types of self-censorship.
That journalists should be able to freely scrutinize power and report on all subjects is a prerequisite for democracy to function, for us as citizens to be able to demand accountability and for us who hold power to be held accountable.
It is also important, I think, to see that we need to do several different things. We need to talk about the value-based parts of society, what kind of Sweden we want to be in the future, and how we build those values into a country that today is quite polarized and scarred.
It is also about real, practical, and feasible measures. For this government, it is, among other things, to enable the contact point for journalists within the framework of Brottsofferjouren. It is a practical matter that has become possible with the help of allocated funds, and it has been requested by the industry – perhaps not by the large media houses. But for the individual journalists who can feel very alone in their assignments, this has been important.
The industry has been invited to a round table discussion in a couple of weeks with me and the Minister for Justice. The idea is that we are to sit down together for a longer period and talk about how hate and threats characterize life right now, which measures from the industry itself have worked, and what is needed moving forward. I very much look forward to that conversation, and I hope that it will give us tools to find further ways forward in this very important work.
Then it was the question of media policy. This government's collective efforts regarding media policy over the last year and a half are a clear signal of the importance of us also maintaining our free and independent media, as well as the importance of having a balanced, strong and independent public service. But there must also be free commercial media that function together in a market. It is from this perspective that we have built the media policy over the recent years.
I believe the member agrees with me when I say that we may not always agree on how the media policy should be crafted and what the measures should look like, but I believe we do not differ very much when we talk about that a lot has happened over the last year and a half regarding the development of the media policy.
Lawen Redar (S)
Mr. Speaker! My questions in the interpellation I submitted to the Minister for Culture are, of course, about TV4's investigation of the Sweden Democrats in the program Kalla fakta.
I am deeply concerned that an investigation of such a large parliamentary party has clearly revealed that their method for political work is to engage in anonymous accounts on social media. In the digital era we live in today, it is precisely social media that is the platform where, not least among young people, people discuss their contemporary life, their political existence, and encounters between different groups. It is therefore the platform where political parties also need to be in order to meet their voters and be able to answer political questions.
If these platforms are permeated by disinformation, if they are permeated by operational campaigns from states that wish Sweden and Swedish cohesion ill, it is extremely serious. But I assess the situation to be even more serious when it is so clearly established that a Swedish political party engages in methods involving the creation of anonymous accounts to promote a polarized message.
When these issues have been reviewed, it has not led to any major consequences. There have been strong statements from government representatives, not least the Prime Minister himself, who has expressed that this is very dangerous for Swedish democracy. But without consequences, we cannot get around the fact that, not least young people, are facing disinformation campaigns, hate, and incitement on social media. It is a party that the government is currently cooperating with on budget-related issues and legislative work.
Many of the initiatives that the Minister for Culture raises here today are very good, but a consequence has not occurred towards the coalition partner. Not even in the speaker's chair today has anyone expressed a rejection of that type of methodology for political work.
I mean that no other democratic party carries out those types of methods, acts in that way, or would have survived such a scrutiny without serious consequences. Against this background, I would have wished for a stronger statement from the Minister for Culture today. Thank you for the debate!
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! If it is a distancing that the member is requesting, I thought it was clearly evident, not least in the statements that the member refers to, that is to say, statements from all government parties during those weeks when the issue was debated extensively and not least when the programs were shown.
My party Moderaterna and my party leader, as well as the Prime Minister, have clearly stated where we stand on this issue. We are very concerned that the type of campaigns can be conducted in that manner. It is difficult when there is already so much disinformation in society that political parties also use those types of methods. It is nothing that we advocate for, and it is not something that I or my party stand for.
Sweden has a broad freedom of speech, and we must be careful with it. Today, there is no requirement that those who engage to form opinion, participate in a demonstration, or in other ways publish different types of posts need to be open about their identity. There is a point to that, and I believe the member knows that. It is designed that way to strengthen freedom of speech.
But we who work politically have a special responsibility to stand for objectivity and clarity and to show where we stand politically. It should be clear when a message is spread that aims to influence public opinion, not least when it comes from a political party. The increased transparency is a fundamental thought behind the measures that are occurring both at the EU level and that this government is working on right now.
I am in favor of an order that means the political parties can be open with their communication towards the voters. I think that is important.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.