Response to interpellation 2023/24:822 on Democracy's resilience against anonymous influence operations

Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)

Madam Speaker! Ida Karkiainen has asked Paulina Brandberg how she intends to act to protect freedom of speech and democracy from undue influence from hate, threats, and disinformation from anonymous accounts. The interpellation has been handed over to me.

The government takes seriously the risk that hate, threats and disinformation lead to division in society, silenced voices and an eroded trust in our democratic institutions. The Swedish community shall continue to be characterized by safety, trust and respect for fundamental freedoms and rights.

The right to express one's opinion constitutes one of the cornerstones of democracy that we must safeguard every day and never take for granted. Freedom of expression, with a long tradition and strong standing in Sweden, is enshrined in our fundamental laws and is thereby subject to extensive protection.

As Minister for Culture, with responsibility for both media and democracy issues, an important part of my work is precisely to promote freedom of expression and strengthen our democratic society. By safeguarding the freedom and diversity of the media, we create the conditions for free opinion formation, increased resilience against disinformation, and independent scrutiny of political and economic power.

Since the turn of the year, a new media support has been in place with the explicit purpose of ensuring high-quality local and regional journalism, which is completely central from a democratic perspective. In addition, work is ongoing on new conditions for public service ahead of the upcoming licensing period in order to create good conditions for public service activities and to maintain and safeguard its independence. A combination of viable commercial media and a strong and independent public service with high public trust is a democratic cornerstone and also a counterweight to the spread of disinformation.

Another important aspect is to safeguard freedom of speech and democratic accountability through strengthened protection for journalists who are subjected to hate and threats. During the spring, I presented, together with the Minister for Justice, new measures in that area. This involves partly a mandate to the Media Authority to gather actors who work with these issues, and partly funds for the Crime Victims Authority to be able to build up a national contact point for journalists who need support or protection.

Freedom of speech is a civil and political right that I will always defend and stand up for. Hate, threats, and disinformation must not gain ground in our society. There, we all bear a common responsibility.

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for Culture and Democracy for the answer!

This summer I read the book Marionetterna by the award-winning author Ingrid Carlberg, which deals with how Lenin built up the Soviet propaganda machine in the early 1900s. In Sweden, people began to sense some unrest regarding this, and it was actually Hjalmar Branting who first asked the question when he saw that the newspaper Pravda was being distributed on a large scale. He thought it was strange that the newspaper was everywhere despite the Bolsheviks being so few and so poor, and he formulated it in a way that would be wise even today, namely: One wonders in some places who is paying. Who stands behind the messages that are spread, and what interests are it that spread a certain type of information?

Today's propaganda machinery is not entirely different from that which existed at the beginning of the 1900s. Today there is a hybrid warfare that aims to spread intolerance, racism and a nationalist extremism, everything seasoned with a hefty pinch of belief in authority. This is something that we have also seen examples of regarding events in our surrounding world; Great Britain is a recent example.

We also cannot be completely certain that Russian interests and Russian troll factories are not influencing how we have it in Sweden. We see platforms with those types of tendencies, and we saw during the spring discussion, when the Sverigedemokraterna were caught having a troll factory, how one could also link this to certain interests from Russian circles which, as a result of this, had seen an opportunity to spread division.

My question to the Minister for Culture and Democracy is therefore: Given what the climate looks like on social media and on these networks and platforms, is there anything the government wants to do to limit and ensure that this type of troll factories cannot operate, also considering that this is part of a hybrid warfare against us as a country and as a nation to weaken and divide us?

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

Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)

Madam Speaker! It is absolutely true that threats and disinformation are rampant in our society. It is therefore a matter of both ensuring that society is robust enough to withstand disinformation and of generally raising the level of knowledge so that we can see through, question, and understand what forces it may be that want to promote certain messages.

In Swedish society, there are also things that are very well-functioning and that build up precisely that robustness which can counteract disinformation. We have, for example, a high voter turnout, a high degree of social trust in our society, an engaged civil society which is an enormous force, well-functioning and legally secure institutions, and vital and independent media. All of this builds a democracy upon, but it also builds a robustness in society against precisely disinformation.

It is absolutely true that the one who understands the flow of information is naturally also better equipped to resist it. Therefore, the government has, among other things, given a mandate to the Media Authority concerning long-term work to strengthen the public's knowledge and media and information literacy when it comes to these types of issues. I believe that we as a society will be able to identify and understand the meaning better if we raise the general media and information literacy.

Other things are also being done, of course. Just as the member says, it is important that we work with preventive measures but also with education in order to be able to resist influence attempts and disinformation. This is also mentioned as one of the most important factors in the national security strategy that the government has developed and which was decided in July this year.

These are some of the things we do at a national level. But this is also an issue that needs to be handled outside our own borders, as many of the platforms that are used are not bound to our country but lack geographical borders. Therefore, within the framework of the Council of the European Union, Sweden has been able to contribute to the regulation of social media to counter disinformation and anonymous influence campaigns via the DSA Regulation. We have also contributed to the EU's code of conduct, which concerns being able to deal with the spread of disinformation on various platform services. In March, a regulation on transparency regarding political advertising was also adopted. A number of things are therefore being done within the framework of the EU.

I have now raised some examples at both the national and EU level where the government is involved in pushing forward precisely to highlight the importance of both working proactively against disinformation and being able to build a strong and robust society.

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer, even if it was not so clear regarding the regulation of platforms specifically. I nevertheless interpret it as that there is a will and ambition on the part of the government to further examine many of the proposals being discussed, which is positive.

Something that is less positive is the proposals regarding the appropriations for public service that the investigation on the conditions for public service in the coming years has presented. They do propose a three percent increase in the first year, but after that, small appropriations, which in practice will become appropriation reductions. It will not build a stronger and more robust public service in a time when we need independent journalism and media more than ever.

The same applies to the media support. We received in black and white what the outcome of the media support became, and it was not as the government had said – that one would safeguard the diversity of media. Instead, we saw that 19 of the 23 newspapers that are responsible for national opinion-forming received no grant. Furthermore, the Swedish Press and Media Council sent money back to the government because they did not pay out all the support. This means that yet another media sector in Sweden is slightly less characterized by diversity and thus more one-sided.

The Social Democrats warned that the new media support could have just such consequences. I therefore hope that we can follow the development together and evaluate whether this is a development we want to see in the long run or if we can do something about it. It is not good that more voices are silenced and that Sweden gets more one-sided reporting and journalism. Sweden needs, on the contrary, more journalism than ever, and it is precisely journalists who are at the forefront of countering disinformation.

That the Sweden Democrats were caught having a troll factory was perhaps not so surprising for many, as many have already seen it in their lives and their everyday lives. However, the aftermath was surprising, especially the large wave of hate that hit journalists, particularly the investigative journalists who scrutinized the Sweden Democrats' troll accounts. This scrutiny showed that we need independent journalism and journalists who dare to scrutinize all parties, including the Sweden Democrats, more than ever—even though hate and threats follow like a letter in the mail, which we saw that they also did.

I asked Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson this spring what the government is doing to ensure that journalists will also in the future dare to scrutinize politicians from all camps. It is not just about having a strategy or an action plan, but about the government giving clear answers that hate and threats against journalists, this important professional group for democracy, are unacceptable.

Can the Minister for Culture and Democracy clarify what the government is doing to counter hate and threats against journalists so that we can have a strong investigative journalism that dares to look at and scrutinize all parties in the Swedish Riksdag and their exercise of power?

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

Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)

Madam Speaker! I shall return to the question of hate and threats against journalists; I am happy to speak about the government's efforts in that regard.

Let me first address a couple of the things that Member Ida Karkiainen mentioned. The parliamentary investigation is now on my desk and is being prepared within the Government Offices. It has also been sent out for consultation, and there is an opportunity to submit consultation responses to it. I cannot comment on an investigation that has been conducted by a parliamentary group, but as I said, I have received the investigation and will continue to work with it. It is, however, far too early to say where it will land. It is, as mentioned, out for consultation, and we look forward to working out the bill.

The government already stated in its first government statement that a balance between a free and independent public service and free commercial media is one of the most important factors in a well-functioning democracy. I naturally stand by this. It sounds to the member that public service will have no funds left, but public service receives approximately 9 billion kronor today, which is a lot of money. Public service makes a fantastic contribution, and it must cost something. Do not make it sound like there is no money in the system, because there are 9 billion today. The investigation's proposals are now on my desk to work further with.

When it comes to the media support, the member said it is a pity if voices are silenced. The point of the new media support was precisely that no voices should be silenced, but rather that more should be heard, not just in Stockholm and the large cities but across the whole country. It is important that the billion we invest in the new media support reaches the white spots around the country that also have a right to good journalism at the local and regional level.

Hate and threats against journalists will never be accepted, and therefore the government has taken action against it. The Minister for Justice and I have had repeated round-table discussions with parts of the industry to talk about this. As I mentioned earlier, we have also made targeted efforts towards Brottsofferjouren to establish this contact point and given the Media Authority an overall mandate to follow up on this. These two measures have been requested by the industry itself as they have seen that the need exists, especially for freelance journalists, who may not have an affiliation with a larger organization. I am pleased about this and look forward to following up on these and other measures.

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Culture and Democracy for the contribution.

Let me return to the question of how we are to protect freedom of speech and democracy against undue influence from hate, threats, and disinformation from, among other things, anonymous accounts and, above all, how we are to combat hate and threats against journalists. The two measures the government has presented are good, but it is no strong statement of intent from the government. Hate and threats against journalists are extremely serious. When the government's coalition partner does not tolerate being scrutinized, it also becomes a matter for the government. I would have wished for a somewhat more powerful response or statements from the government regarding how one views this.

The answers that the Minister for Culture gives do not quite match the problem. We have proposed several things, including that the platforms should have better control over who is behind the accounts. That would make it much harder for the troll armies, regardless of whether they come from a foreign power or from the government base.

Madam Speaker! I am concerned about the development of democracy in the world, and I am concerned about the development of democracy in Sweden. I am concerned about how easy it is for foreign powers to see weaknesses in our community, in our country, and to cause division, fuel xenophobia, and spread hatred. I am also concerned about all those who help and fall into the trap of spreading disinformation and propaganda without knowledge of who or what purpose actually lies behind it.

I am concerned about our resilience. I am also concerned about the government's collective policy regarding democracy. I mean the attack against civic life with withdrawn and scrapped support and the attack against the opposition regarding lotteries. I also mean strangled grants to adult education and restrictions against the trade union movement. It is not a policy that promotes democracy and the development of democracy.

My last question to the Minister for Culture is: What shall we do to strengthen democracy in Sweden?

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

Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ida Karkiainen, for this incredibly important debate!

But let me be very clear again in this speaker's chair. Both I myself, my party, and my party leader have been very clear about where we stand on the issue of political parties' use of anonymous accounts. It is nothing that we either advocate for or stand for.

We believe on the contrary that political parties should work with transparency and openness in their communication towards the voters. I am convinced that it strengthens the credibility both for us as political parties and for the democratic dialogue. We need to collectively guard our extensive freedom of speech here in Sweden. There is a strong protection here for the right to express one's opinion. Unlike how it is in less democratic countries, one can here even do so without having to reveal one's identity or speak about who one is. That is also a part of the freedom of speech. But it is clear that we must be able to safeguard that right and reflect on what consequences it can have.

I do not think anyone who knows me would say that I do not know what it is like to be restricted. I come from a country where the restriction is very clear. My family has moved because of the restriction.

That I, my party and the government will stand up for freedom of expression is absolutely clear to me in this role.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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