On disinformation, moderators, and a certain awkwardness in the state’s ambition to put the internet in order
An interim morning reflection by T.L., over a cup of coffee, in conversation with AI
Krzysztof Gawkowski, Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Digital Affairs, has demanded that social media platforms establish Polish-language content moderation teams. The aim, we are told, is to make the fight against disinformation more effective.
Does that sound reasonable? Up to a point, certainly. One can hardly expect someone who does not understand a language to recognise its irony, allusions, political context, or the ordinary human pleasure of a well-aimed barb. A Polish-speaking moderator may therefore prove useful.
But one question immediately presents itself: who gets to decide what counts as disinformation, and what is merely an opinion that someone influential would rather not have to read?
Not every falsehood is disinformation in the sense of a deliberate attempt to mislead. Not every controversial proposition is a lie. And a statement critical of those in power does not become suspicious merely because it fails to fit their preferred picture of reality.
A report submitted by a state institution should not, by itself, settle the question of whether a post must be removed. Between the complaint and the decision there must be room for independent assessment, reasons that can be examined, and a right of appeal.
Otherwise, the fight against disinformation may quietly turn into a struggle over who is entitled to define the limits of permissible interpretations of the world.
What If the Blogger Does Not Write in Polish?
Allow me a small observation from the perspective of someone who has been running his own blog for years.
Mr Gawkowski, by all means establish Polish-language moderation teams. By all means expect platforms to respond more promptly to reports. But the modern internet also allows an author to publish in English — or even Chinese — rather than Polish alone.
One need not own a media corporation, work as a professional journalist, or enjoy the benefits of a government digitalisation programme. A blog, an internet connection, and a little curiosity about the world will do.
I publish my reflections on international politics in English as well. In doing so, I address readers beyond Poland and allow my writing to enter a wider international conversation.
Take, for instance, an essay entitled A New Yalta, Mr Sikorski? Or Simply the Same Old Game?
I am not suggesting that writing in a foreign language offers immunity from moderation. Platforms have their own rules, which may apply to content in any language. Nor is there any basis for assuming that the Polish-language teams proposed by the minister will be instructed to scrutinise every publication by a Polish author, whatever language it happens to be written in.
The point is simpler: Polish is not the only gateway to the global conversation, and a Polish official is not its host.
More Than a Decade Without Trouble
I have also been publishing on Facebook for well over a decade. So far, I have encountered no problems with my publications that would justify attributing to the platform an intention to restrict my freedom of expression.
I therefore see no reason to assume in advance that the minister’s latest announcement will change my situation. Nor do I intend to pretend that the mere creation of moderation teams amounts to censorship.
But neither am I prepared to accept, without asking questions, that every initiative presented as a campaign against disinformation must be right by definition.
In a democracy, declared intentions are only part of the story. The means employed, the criteria used to make decisions, and accountability for mistakes matter just as much. If content is illegal, there are procedures for dealing with it. If it violates a platform’s rules, the platform may enforce those rules. But if it is merely inconvenient to the authorities, that alone should not be grounds for taking it down.
That is the boundary worth discussing before we celebrate yet another administrative initiative.
And Finally, Mr Minister…
that may work in theory.
Not because I imagine myself immune to all forms of moderation. Not because English or Chinese is some sort of magical shield. And certainly not because I believe state institutions should turn a blind eye to genuine threats.
Simply because I have no intention of accepting that my ability to express a thought in public depends on whether someone in an office considers it sufficiently acceptable.
I can write in Polish. I can write in English. I can try my hand at Chinese. And I can disagree with a minister, a prime minister, a president, or an entire chorus of commentators.
None of these activities requires me to obtain prior approval for my interpretation of the world.
The internet was supposed to open the world to the individual. It would be a curious kind of progress if the individual now had to obtain an official’s permission before deciding what he was allowed to say in it.
T.L., with the assistance of AI
