Response to interpellation 2024/25:485 on a ban on anonymous accounts on social media
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 KD argues that there are no planned initiatives to ban anonymous accounts 1. KD emphasizes that measures must be proportionate and protect freedom of speech 1. KD argues that there may be reasons to be anonymous, for example for regime critics, and warns that a ban risks becoming an infringement on free speech 2 3. KD advocates for a focus on source criticism and pressing platforms through existing rules 3. KD considers that the content can be worse than the anonymity itself 4. KD argues that a ban on anonymity would likely be an infringement on the freedom of speech act 4. 5 S considers that digital trash should be removed.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Markus Selin has asked me if I intend to take any initiatives nationally or at the EU level to prevent the use of anonymous accounts on social media, since such accounts contribute to skyrocketing polarization, lies, and attempts to divide the people.
There are no planned initiatives regarding a ban on anonymous accounts. The Government is following the developments closely and takes seriously that the use of anonymous accounts on social media risks contributing to the spread of hate, threats, disinformation, and a diminished trust in our democratic institutions. What we do online shall, just as what we do offline, be based on trust, safety, and respect for fundamental freedoms and rights.
Many important measures have already been taken in this area in recent years to safeguard safety online both within the EU and nationally. One of these is the EU's regulation on a single market for digital services (also called the DSA). The regulation sets clear requirements for social media platforms with the aim of creating a safer online environment. The rules in the regulation vary depending on the type and size of the platform and apply, among other things, to the handling of illegal content, the exercise of fundamental rights, as well as rules to strengthen a transparent public debate.
In Sweden, it is the Swedish Post and Telecom Authority in the role of national coordinator for digital services, as well as the Consumer Agency and the Swedish Media Council that are responsible for the supervision of the DSA and of the digital platforms established in Sweden. The authorities also participate actively in the EU cooperation that has been built up through the DSA within the European Committee for Digital Services. The authorities also follow other member states' initiatives and developments in the area.
Another example of important measures is the adoption of the EU regulation on transparency and targeting regarding political advertising, which is to begin to be applied later this year. The regulation targets all actors who order, design, or disseminate political advertising and aims to make it easier for voters to recognize and understand who is behind such advertising.
Alongside legal acts, there are other initiatives, for example, the EU's code of conduct on disinformation which many platform services have joined. The code includes, among other things, a commitment to combat fake accounts as well as amplification mechanisms driven by so-called bots.
Justice Minister Strömmer and his Nordic colleagues have also had meetings with the major social media platforms to emphasize their responsibility and get them to do more on the issue of anonymous accounts, specifically regarding the recruitment of young people into organized crime. At a press conference on February 20, 2025, the government also announced its intention to develop proposals in a fast-track for expanded possibilities for the Swedish Police Authority to act against illegal content online.
In the work to counter hate, threats, personal attacks and disinformation, both at the national level and at the EU level, it is important to emphasize that such efforts should be designed proportionately. The right to freedom of expression is completely fundamental for every democracy. All proposals that risk limiting people's ability to speak freely must therefore be weighed against the constitutionally protected freedom of expression.
Markus Selin (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Minister for Digitalization Erik Slottner for an answer that was not directly exhaustive but still an attempt at a written and oral answer!
Mr. Speaker! Anonymous accounts on social media must go. I have the people with me; I know that after having seen opinion polls. I have political history with me in my view on disinformation and directly harmful propaganda. I have the research with me. I have the ongoing democratic development in Sweden, Europe, and the world with me. I have our constitutions with me. I have the future on my side.
Mr. Speaker! The only thing I can see right now is that Minister for Digitalization Slottner seems to have an overt but brutal dependency in his government position on one of the populist and xenophobic parties: Sverigedemokraterna.
Let us stop anonymous accounts on social media! This is simple but sad, because if we do not do it, we get disinformation, which gives us polarization, which gives us demonization, which gives us autocratization.
Mr. Speaker! It is good that Minister for Digitalization Slottner mentions the work taking place within the EU, but it is not enough. It is still worth noting that the EU law Digital Services Act, which was passed in 2022 and which the Minister for Digitalization refers to, had broad support when it was decided. All EU governments, including Sweden's, voted yes. But unsurprisingly, it was still a party from Sweden that did not have the patience or could not vote yes in the EU Parliament, namely the Sverigedemokraterna – lo and behold!
Mr. Speaker! We will take this immediately. Last year, we saw TV4's program Kalla fakta: Undercover i trollfabriken. We did not only see how the Sverigedemokraterna spread filth with their troll factory through fake accounts, cowardly anonymous accounts at the taxpayers' expense, and employed cyber warriors, but it also turned out that the Sverigedemokraterna spread Russian narratives. They create division and undermine free and open media in our country, Sweden.
Disinformation leads to polarization, which leads to demonization, which leads to autocratization. But the government did nothing about this last year and is doing nothing now either. Almost no one in the government dares to speak their mind or act, because we know that Ulf Kristersson, Minister for Digitalization Slottner, and the entire government are completely dependent on the support of the Sverigedemokraterna. Therefore, the words "full and equal influence" are written eleven times in the Tidö Agreement.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! After hearing Selin's contribution, I am beginning to understand the background a bit better. This is actually about the Sverigedemokraterna. It is about the government not making certain decisions because the Sverigedemokraterna are obstructing, and about how the Sverigedemokraterna voted on a regulation in the European Parliament during the previous term. This is supposedly supposed to mean that the government does not dare to take necessary steps. That is simply not true. That the government has not moved forward with a ban on anonymity or anonymous accounts has nothing to do with the Sverigedemokraterna.
Markus Selin says that he has a lot of support when he proposes a ban on anonymous accounts. I am not quite as sure that the support is so united. I am not entirely sure that it would be completely problem-free to introduce such a ban and still comply with the constitution. It would probably need to be discussed significantly more among lawyers, and one needs to maneuver more clearly in the issue.
I mean that there can actually be reasons to be anonymous behind an account. I can, for example, imagine that some critics of a regime may have reasons to be anonymous in order to dare to tell the truth about what is unfolding and happening in certain countries without having to fear being persecuted by, for example, regime-loyal individuals.
There may be reasons of that type for wanting to be anonymous online. In such cases, this is important in order to be able to provide objective and truthful information that we can be sure is not filtered through authoritarian regimes.
I believe that neither I, Markus Selin, nor anyone else in this chamber likes the presence of anonymous accounts. For us, it is obvious that one should know who is behind a message and that one should be open about who one is. But it is difficult to ban everything one dislikes. That is how it is in our society; one cannot ban everything.
Many times, one can instead attack the effect of what one does not like, and that is what we have done, among other things, with the Digital Services Act. What we prohibit and address is precisely the content on the internet, for example, illegal and harmful content. This is a very large undertaking, and the DSA regulation has had a major effect on the internet's content. A great deal has been able to be addressed thanks to the regulation, and we have several government agencies that are active in the work.
I also believe that one should be a bit careful so that one does not end up on a slippery slope. If one starts banning anonymous accounts – what will be the next step? What should one ban next? Eventually, we end up on a slippery slope where we do not respect freedom of speech, which is an important cornerstone of Swedish and Western democracy.
I would therefore like to raise a warning finger for this, which in a first stage can be seen as a self-evident and rather simple measure but which risks, in the long run, becoming an infringement on freedom of speech. It would be very dangerous and unfortunate.
Markus Selin (S)
Mr. Speaker! There is no general right in Swedish legislation or from the perspective of human rights to be anonymous on social media accounts. Of course, there are constitutional laws, whistleblower protection, and freedom of the press acts, and we shall stand up for and protect those.
But when it comes to this issue of freedom of speech in connection with anonymous accounts on social media, this is something that is being spread precisely by these anonymous accounts on social media, while they plague the finest thing we have – the democratic conversation. Here we must take action.
Mr. Speaker! I have nevertheless seen some light from the government. The Minister for Foreign Affairs delivered a strategy for digital behavior in foreign policy in December, and it was also mentioned in the foreign policy declaration in February. The strategy is 23 pages long.
Mr. Speaker! The strategy is admittedly quite good. I want to point out that it contains, and is permeated by, beautiful words about democracy, about being able to express oneself freely and about the free formation of opinion. One can also read about how the opposite can undermine our democratic institutions. Somewhere here, it falls to the government to practice what it preaches.
One thing that made me hopeful was when the Moderate Culture Minister Parisa Liljestrand sat in a TV sofa for 30 minutes and said that she does not rule out legislation regarding anonymous accounts. This occurred on September 5. We Social Democrats responded immediately: What is the government waiting for? Go! It is no secret that we want to push for this.
I believe and hope that today's children and youth have a somewhat better grasp of this regarding source criticism than we in my generation do. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, was Source Criticism Day. Let us then remind ourselves of the obvious things that border on what is lacking in the anonymous, cowardly accounts out there. Is the source authentic? Is the source independent? What interest does the sender have in the issue? This is what it comes down to. Of course, it doesn't work with anonymous accounts, let alone with troll factories and all the fake accounts.
Mr. Speaker! Yesterday, the V-Dem report arrived again, the annual report on the development of democracy – quite dark matter. 45 countries are currently moving towards more autocracy. We see the same loop there as here: disinformation leads to polarization, which leads to demonization, which leads to autocratization. In recent times, we have seen a brutal increase in the spread of precisely disinformation.
Then we have the developments in the USA, where both the president and the president's closest colleague own their own social media platforms and where Elon Musk's platform X enters the German election debate and supports the right-wing extremist party Alternative for Germany.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! The last thing did not happen particularly anonymously, however. That very support was very open.
I still want to raise a warning finger when Markus Selin says: Go! Just proceed with a ban! That is exactly what I am a bit worried about. Here we are heading onto a slippery slope. If we start nibbling at the free word at the edge with bans, which there is a risk of here anyway, what will be the next step? I really want to raise a warning finger for this.
Parisa Liljestrand has thus said, even though I do not know if she is correctly quoted, that she does not rule this out. I also think that we should look further into the question. I have also not said anything about ruling anything out. The question was whether we currently had any initiatives, and to that I answered no. There are no initiatives today. Whether one rules something out is actually another question.
I want to continue with the example I took up. Say that one is an Iranian regime critic and comes here to Sweden. Then there may be reasons to be anonymous in order to spread truths about what is happening in the home country. Then the possibility of being anonymous may be the only way for us to get that information unfiltered. It is those types of trade-offs that make one have to be very careful before proceeding with something like this.
Selin herself mentions source criticism and that yesterday was source criticism day. That is why there were quite a few segments about precisely source criticism on the news yesterday, I understand here and now. I believe it is this that we need to focus on: teaching people to be critical of sources. We are already putting quite a lot of pressure on the large social media platforms, not least with the DSA regulation, but we need to put even greater pressure, increase the cooperation with them even more.
The EU has also developed codes of conduct regarding this, precisely so that the large platforms will clear out inappropriate content.
What we also say very often is that what applies offline should also apply online. Offline, in the analog world, one can also be anonymous – do not forget that! That possibility is not infrequently used in letters to the editor and other such things. I myself have been subjected to the signature being someone other than the person who actually stands behind it. One may think it is unpleasant, one may think it is awkward, and one may be against it, but it is quite difficult to forbid it.
If it is possible to be anonymous offline, perhaps that possibility should not be forbidden online either, even if most of us usually do not like the phenomenon.
Markus Selin (S)
Mr. Speaker! I have full respect for the Iranian freedom fighters. But if one writes anonymously in a newspaper, there is still some responsible publisher. Yes, we shall keep the protection of sources, but for publications, there is always someone responsible for the publication. It is not that this is about, but all the junk out there. It is the digital junk that must be removed, that which more and more is getting out of control.
Again: I understand that the Minister for Digitalization does not want to speak about the Sweden Democrats. I don't really want to either. But they are so closely associated with the rubbish and the digital tone of conversation.
Five months after the news about the troll factories broke, the Sweden Democrats submitted a committee motion on how they want the digital conversation online to be. It is somewhat provocative, once again, that they point in a completely incorrect direction for what they want to see. I hope and believe that Minister for Digitalization Slottner stands behind the intention to remove this, but what did the Sweden Democrats write five months ago? They want to introduce legal protection for the anonymous accounts, it says in motion 2024/25:1449.
There are quite a few astonishing things in it. What I mentioned came from motion 2. Motion 8 is about that one should not be allowed to delete, moderate or disparage content published on social media platforms based on political opinion.
It would be terrible to go out on sewage canal X tonight, when some have had a few grogs, accompanied by troll factories. It is terrible out there!
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Now this is a debate between Markus Selin and the government. As the responsible minister, I can answer for the government. Now a lot of things were read out from a committee motion from the Sweden Democrats, who are not even in the government. It becomes a bit strange for me. I think Markus Selin should take that debate with the Sweden Democrats and those who stand behind this committee motion. The government cannot take responsibility for it.
I agree that rubbish should be removed, both analog and digital. Then, it is always a question of definition what is rubbish. It lies somewhat in the eye of the beholder. However, there is a great deal of content in the digital environment that I would also define as rubbish, which is even harmful and also illegal at times. What we are now focusing on, among other things with the DSA Regulation, is to remove what is illegal and harmful. The content may be worse than the anonymity itself.
Not everything one dislikes can be legislated away. We do as well as we can to manage and regulate what is harmful and sometimes the effects of different phenomena. However, it is very difficult to prohibit all phenomena one dislikes.
Freedom of speech is part of the Swedish constitution. It is a cornerstone of democracy. To completely ban the possibility of being anonymous would, with high probability, be an infringement on the freedom of speech act itself. It is therefore that we do not take the issue lightly, but we want to work with the issue in other ways.
I am happy to take more measures so that the internet and social media become cleaner than they are today. There is a lot that is inappropriate, and on that, we are in complete agreement.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.