The Internet will strengthen democracy, it said. Now, many people complain of the opposite. Have all gone wrong?
The Internet can give people still have a voice, but in the meantime, we also know the negative sides and how it is used for the Manipulation. Everything would be easier if the rise of populism and the spread of the Internet, not in parallel would be lost.
not Has to do with the other?
But, in a certain way. But the rise of populism has deeper social roots, such as the ever-widening gap between the Poor and the rich, globalization, Migration, and the General feeling of the people, that the governments care little about these problems. The Internet is a populist Medium, and populists will not find a platform, as they had previously. But the Internet alone cannot explain the choice of Donald Trump, the Brexit or Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil.
Still, there are voices that criticize, for example, the Youtube algorithm to increase radicalisation tendencies.
The Turkish researcher Zeynep Tufekci said, who is looking as a vegetarian Youtube video that is soon to Vegans. Who represents conservative values, ends up in the Alt-Right movement. I think that certainly is possible, but the Problem is, we don’t know for sure.
you have doubts?
We need to better understand who this radicalization is happening. We take, the more radical the content is, the more likely people will look more, but that’s not necessarily true.
Emotional content.
Exactly. And that is the reason why the Internet democracies threatened. Because it supports issues and candidates that rely on emotional messages to go quickly viral. This works best when the people get upset. The more you get upset, the more likely it is that they share a content. But that has less to do with the algorithm than how we tick.
But the algorithm recommends Videos to watch next.
Yes, most of the Videos to be watched, because the System you are proposing. It is a big concern of mine that the Internet platforms have to enter your data for the research free. The Problem is, we accept things, you know, but not exactly. There are Youtube efforts to counter radicalization.
In what Form?
The Google think-tank, Jigsaw has a project called Redirect. The researchers try just using the video recommendations to prevent the radicalisation of young Muslims. Something Similar we need for the Old Right. It is difficult to define radical content. Some politicians today have and use formulations that are close to the ideas of the Old Right.
your President, for example.
Yes, only one example (laughs). the Facebook has recently announced that it take action against false statements by politicians in the Videos. You don’t want to have to decide who is telling the truth.
Find the good?
I think it is difficult to define who a politician is. You could take very far and then many false statements tolerate. In any case, it should be in political advertising, more stringent criteria. In their spots lies politicians, advertising constantly, that we should not simply accept. But at the same time: we Want to, that Facebook has the prerogative of interpretation about what is true and what is false?
Facebook is taken into the responsibility: protests against Mark Zuckerberg’s network. Photo: Keystone
there Has been, historically, ever in a similar Situation, in the two large companies had so much global Power over our Thinking?
Because only the Catholic Church comes to me before the Reformation. Our Situation today is quite unique. If we want to save the democratic System, we need new political institutions such as an independent Supervisory authority to draw for the Internet giant to take on responsibility. We are still going to live for a while in a world of Facebook and Google to decide which opinions are globally expressed.
This is worrying.
It is horrible, but to solve structurally quite difficult. It is a global Problem and the global cooperation it is not good. At the same time, each country has special sensitive. Europe find at least solutions. They make the companies responsible, but it needs clear guidelines. And we should not expect from Internet companies, that you answer the questions of freedom of expression, in which traditional institutions have failed. The big Problem is the sheer mass. Solely on Facebook every day, there are about a billion new entries. Controls should work as automated processes, sometimes, but it can decide only a person, what is right and what is wrong.
when, for example,?
An example from Brazil: During the last election campaign, there was a hate crime against a gay man. They beat him up tubes with light. In consequence of Facebook-User-bulbs-Emojis began to post, if you wanted someone to defame or calling for violence against this Person. What do you do now? Light bulbs-Emojis ban?
There are online so much hatred. It was always and has now found a valve, or has increased?
on the one Hand, there was the always been and is now more visible, on the other hand, the networking is easier. As the neo-Nazis they used to be in San Francisco, perhaps alone, now you find a great Community, can plan and discuss. Some of the problems with Facebook are tightened on Whatsapp.
Because the communication is encrypted?
Yes, it is much more dangerous. Whatsapp has led in developing countries, and to several hate crimes. In India or Brazil political forces take advantage of the Whatsapp groups targeted. I’m not saying we should crack the encryption.
With this new reality we have to live simply?
There are other measures. For example, the group sizes reduce the fast forwarding to complicate the concealment of the identity impossible.
But there are situations, such as, for example, currently in Hong Kong, where the anonymity protects people from the government.
Exactly. It is always a Balance. At the same time, the anonymity also allows foreign powers, in elections. And that is problematic.
“The Internet makes things worse, because it wegfrisst also the livelihood of the traditional media world.”Nathaniel Persily, a lawyer and political analyst
Why did you choose this topic?
I work as an expert in court proceedings on the issue of elections. The subject of electoral advertising has always interested me, and with the influence of the Internet, you have to deal with as simply.
What’s bothering you, robbing you of sleep?
I don’t sleep much. Two things worry me most: the Power of the Internet on the one hand, but on the other hand, how we react to it. We are adopted in to panic mode, regulations, without knowing the true facts. I would like to, that there are profound laws to these issues, but they should be based on what is really happening. The next two years will be crucial.
Are you a Democrat or a Republican?
Neither. Because of my work as an expert before the court I am not allowed to define me.
But what are the Ideal important to you?
of Course, the human rights, and I condemn any kind of hatred.
Can protect political systems, such as the Switzerland, in which participation plays an important role, before the radicalisation through the Internet?
If all the countries would be so rich and neutral like Switzerland, Yes. But the Brexit shows the opposite.
The Brexit was only a vote, the people decide a lot of things.
The research shows that the feeling to be represented, depends on the number of votes. The current crisis is a profound. The people have lost confidence in many traditional institutions. The Internet is not the main reason, but the social changes and uncertainty. But the Internet is making this worse, because it wegfrisst also the livelihood of the traditional media world.
you Have voted for Donald Trump?
I can’t tell you. But in an international sense, I’m all for freedom of expression and would like to that the Internet brings to the people. I think we need to specify the platforms clear rules. But the longer I deal with this all the more clear to me is how difficult such schemes. And we should very much fear a world in dereinige U.S. corporations such as Google and Facebook as global police officers on the freedom of expression of the guards.
Created: 25.10.2019, 15:12 PM
