Jakob Schirrmacher in an interview: “It is not officially censored because the mere threat is enough”

Mr. Schirrmacher, are you a contentious person?

It depends on who I'm talking to. I really don't like arguing with my loved one. Nevertheless, engaging in intense conversation is simply part of my life—even at the risk of arguing. Arguments have their place because they help us move forward.

My point is: On the first page of your book, you address the reader and tell them that "this polemic aims above all at one thing: to argue." Why is this aspect so important to you?

Because while researching the topic of disinformation, I noticed that there's a consensus on this topic. If you look up the terms "disinformation" or "fake news," you'll always come across the same definitions.

That the term disinformation refers to the spread of false or misleading information?

Exactly. The literature agrees that disinformation is a threat that we must combat. Unfortunately, this perspective is one-sided. It ignores the other side of the coin, and the issue is viewed from the same perspective. We should critically examine the given definition and ask ourselves: What is disinformation? And can we even clearly define which information is disinformation?

What would you say – why are these questions not being asked?

We live in a thoroughly pluralistic society, but one that is increasingly nesting itself into smaller public spheres and entrenching itself behind its own ideologies – which significantly complicates discourse. And it is precisely for this reason that I have written a polemic that is deliberately provocative and pointedly formulated. I hope that the space for discourse will open up again – in all directions.

Before we delve deeper into the content, let's talk about the term "disinformation," to which you have dedicated a whole chapter. What exactly do you understand by disinformation—and how does it differ from traditional propaganda?

As already mentioned, disinformation is almost always defined the same way these days – at its core, it's the spread of false factual claims intended to deceive. But how do we define what constitutes a false factual claim? And how can this be proven? How do we prove an intent to deceive? This is precisely why I personally find it very difficult to define and grasp the term disinformation. We're talking about a topic that is clearly about truth and lies. But if we look at the origins and provenance of the term, we see that it is an intelligence term that was introduced in Russia in the 1920s.

And why?

In this context, disinformation is described as a mechanism—a form of warfare and propaganda. When a state wants to operate against another, it deliberately and deliberately spreads false information. This term—disinformation—was strongly and almost exclusively anchored in intelligence jargon at the time. In my book, I describe how this term experienced a kind of renaissance starting in 2016. Two events were crucial to this.

Tell!

The election of Donald Trump had a significant impact on the term – but so did Brexit. Approaches to explaining Trump's election and Britain's exit from the EU were quickly sought. Numerous studies were initiated that attempted to explain that Trump's election victory was based on the spread of disinformation. The results for Brexit were similar, so the term has expanded so widely that it has mutated into a container term. Disinformation means everything and nothing at once.

If I understand you correctly, you cannot or do not want to clearly define the term disinformation?

In my opinion, we mean propaganda, but we use the term disinformation. Therefore, we should try to distance ourselves from this intelligence vocabulary and return to what it is—propaganda.

How do you determine whether information is propaganda?

Basically, the first step should be to examine the actor structure. In other words: Who wrote this information? A state? An individual? If it's state actors, I would initially call it propaganda and take a closer look at the scope of such a campaign. You know, I think we should be very cautious when using terms like disinformation and accusing citizens of deliberately spreading false information. Especially in our fast-moving discourse landscape, where yesterday's lie can be tomorrow's fact.

The new CDU-SPD federal government has set itself an ambitious goal in its coalition agreement: to combat the deliberate dissemination of "false factual claims" – especially in the digital world. How do you assess the legal enshrinement of such a "ban on lying"?

If we're honest, this move is absolutely absurd – especially in times of crisis. We see that such fake news laws are currently being passed all over the world. Especially in totalitarian states, they are narrowing the freedom of expression even more drastically. But now such laws are also being used in democratic states. This proposed legislation by the new German government is an attack on the fundamental values ​​of our society and an attack on our democracy. It has little to do with freedom of expression, and it is wrong for the state to establish itself as the supreme guardian of truth, able to define what is true or false.

Because there is no more arguing?

And because finding the truth is a process. It can't be fixed or set in stone. History has taught us that old narratives lose their validity and new insights open up new perspectives. Accordingly, it is more than alarming when the state begins to establish itself as an authority on truth.

Have you already taken action against the “ban on lying” and no longer share everything you see or what moves you on social media?

The effect you describe is the so-called chilling effect, which results in a form of self-censorship triggered by such restrictive laws. And therein lies the problem: There is no official censorship because it is enough to influence the culture of debate and opinion through the mere threat of consequences. I, too, notice this effect occurring in me. When I post something on social media, I repeatedly ask myself whether the wording isn't too provocative. Many of my colleagues feel the same way.

In your opinion, how should politics deal with disinformation – or to put it another way: How can a democracy react to disinformation without developing restrictive and possibly authoritarian tendencies itself?

As a child of the 90s, I'm a huge fan of the open and free internet as we once knew it. So-called fact-checking organizations, while certainly justified, are part of the problem. Not all of them are as neutral as they claim or appear. A better alternative, in my opinion, is the community approach, which is already being used on X. Users can flag posts and point out that a post is misleading or a statistic is taken out of context. We have the opportunity to contradict certain statements without deleting them outright. That's why I generally think it's better if we don't delete anything at all. We just leave things as they are.

But aren't you ignoring a major problem? On the respective platform, you can add a community rating to the image of a graphic. However, if the image is saved and shared via other channels, this rating will no longer be visible. The incorrect graphic will be shared thousands of times.

That's absolutely right. That's why there are journalists who educate – and fact-checking organizations, too. Nevertheless, I maintain that too much government and too much regulation harm this debate and our society. What we need are citizens who think for themselves and determine whether information might be misleading. What we need are initiatives that strengthen media literacy – and don't start by restricting discourse.

Jakob Schirrmacher: “I can only discuss with arguments – not with regulations and prohibitions.” Jakob Schirrmacher

In your book, you write that the spread of disinformation is not a modern social media phenomenon. That would mean, however, that we have never learned the skills or the ability to deal with disinformation.

Yes, we have fallen for it when information was presented to us as disinformation. Take the Hungarian-Austrian physician Ignaz Semmelweis, who said in the 19th century that one should wash one's hands before giving birth. He was declared insane, his colleagues excluded him from scientific discourse – and many years later it turned out that he was right. But that's just one example, and with it I want to make it clear that sometimes we feel we hold the truth in our hands – only to be proven wrong. I don't think we've ever had the ability to immediately recognize deception and manipulation.

The coronavirus pandemic and the associated spread of information play a major role in your book. Would you say that this period was the trigger for writing a book about disinformation? In retrospect, yes. Anyone who was critical of the pandemic was quickly cornered and labeled a coronavirus denier. At the time, the theory that the virus originated in a lab was dismissed as a conspiracy theory, and posts on X that explored this theory were deleted. This theory is now considered the likely cause of the outbreak. And what does that tell us? I can only discuss things with arguments—not with regulations and bans.

Why did you self-publish your book? Was that a conscious decision, or were you unable to find a publisher willing to publish your polemic? Two factors led to this. First, I wanted to publish the book as quickly as possible after the "ban on lying" was included in the coalition agreement. Second, I had been working on the book for some time and had repeatedly submitted a synopsis. Unfortunately, all the publishers turned me down.

How come?

The topic was too sensitive. Various reasons were given. Then I decided to publish it myself because the topic is close to my heart and I wanted to share my thoughts on it. It was a burning issue for me.

You dedicated your book to your father, Frank Schirrmacher, who died in 2014 and was himself a journalist and author. Are there any points in your book where your father would have disagreed with you and argued with you?

In fact, I often wonder how my father would view certain things that are happening today. In my mind, I still argue with him about many topics. And when my father was alive, we enjoyed controversial discussions. When I was still in my teenage Sturm und Drang phase, we often argued – even though we secretly knew that he might have been right. I think these days we would discuss things more than argue. But I know one thing for sure: he would be as concerned as I am about what is happening in the world – especially about how quickly we are willing to trade freedom for perceived security.

Jakob Schirrmacher: Misinform Yourself! A polemic. Self-published. 164 pages, 18 euros