Help, we live in a troll factory!
How we came to live in a climate obstructing troll factory subsidized by tax money.
Welcome back to Climate Psyched, the newsletter where we explore all things psychological, behavioral and emotional related to the climate and ecosystem crises.
When you work in the climate field and happen to be a somewhat young woman who is occasionally seen in the public eye and exist on platforms such as twitter, you will most likely encounter internet trolls.
After numerous years in the field I’m fairly used to trolls calling me mentally ill and accusing me of wanting to scare people into climate anxiety in order to make money off them. I also know that blocking quickly and not responding is an essential strategy to not waste energy and not be silenced. But something started happening a few years back, when some of my posts mentioning climate psychology suddenly could attract a swarm of trolls all writing variations of the same things during a concentrated short period of time. It felt coordinated and intense. A recent journalistic investigation has confirmed that it indeed was. That they indeed are.
This month’s post is about how we in Sweden came to live in a climate obstructing troll factory subsidized by tax money, and what we can do about it.
Situation
A few weeks back, after several months of journalistic infiltration with hidden camera, the investigative program “Kalla Fakta” (“Hard Facts”) could reveal that far-right party the Sweden Democrats has employed several people at their communication department to use a multitude of anonymous accounts to spread disinformation and hateful content in order to amplify the party’s core messages, including not the least xenophobic, but also climate obstructing content. The journalists could also reveal that alternative media channel Riks, formally independent, in practicality is run by the Sweden Democrats, something that the party carefully hide.
A troll factory, as defined by the Cambridge dictionary is
an organization set up in order to publish a large number of messages or posts on the internet, that often appear to be from people who do not really exist, and that are intended to cause trouble, influence political views
In this case anonymous internet trolls, employed by the party who’s the closest governmental collaborator, paid for by our tax money to spread hatred and manipulate the public debate.
After the scoop was published the Sweden Democrats reacted by denying and calling it an influence operation by the TV channel and “left establishment”. Perhaps more surprising is that the government representatives repeatedly have said that they take no responsibility for their close collaborators action, even though they think they’re horrible. In comparison, the members of the government have recently said that climate activists should be punished with harder sentences, and that activists who disrupt public gatherings are a threat to the democratic debate.
So, how did we end up in a situation where a party, founded by neo-nazis in the 1980’s, openly can employ internet trolls, without sanctions from the government, while climate activists who use their democratic rights to vocally push for climate politics in line with the Paris agreement are considered democratic threats? Quite a few answers can be found in a newly published dissertation.
Explanation
In Fuelling Denial - The climate change reactionary movement and Swedish far-right media, researcher Kjell Vowles examines how parts of what he defines as the climate reactionary movement has found its way into partisan politics, partly by establishing own media channels and spreading distrust in legacy media.
Having a long history of spreading disinformation and obstructing climate policies, the fossil fuel industry has in the past decade established closer ties to the European far-right, something that has been facilitated by the establishment of the far-right alternative media ecosystem and a wider climate reactionary movement.
Throughout the years the reactionary movement has used several tools from the tobacco industry handbook, for example to keep suggesting that both sides of a story needs to be reported, continuously making the issue of climate change one of opinions rather than facts, undermining the common understanding of the foundational problem: we are in a climate crisis due to the anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels. The science has been clear for years, but the reactionary movement has been successful in getting media to portray it as a both-sides-issue.
Not echo-chambers, but feedback loops
Contrary to a common belief, research seems to show that the use of social media directed by digital algorithms doesn’t lead to small online filter-bubbles where people only get their news from a small selection of partisan media. What does, however, seem to influence the news flow, and amplify the danger of troll factories, is the creation of so-called propaganda feedback loops. In traditional legacy media there are a number of gatekeepers who engage in a continuous reality check of media’s articles and politicians statements: other media, citizens, politicians. This increases the chances of upholding higher standards of truthfulness, and lowers the incentives to blatantly lie.
The propaganda feedback loops work differently: rather than gatekeepers checking each other for truthfulness, the checking focuses on whether media’s or a politicians statements are in line with a certain ideology. Truth becomes inferior to ideology. It’s not so much that the audience doesn’t get its news from various sources, but rather that everything that comes from outside the feedback loop, or that isn’t ideologically aligned, is brushed of as untrustworthy. In fact, Vowles writes, there’s newer research that suggests that listening to the other side strengthens conviction rather than leading to reflection and a possible change of view. Emotions seem to override knowledge and reflection.
Feeding populist emotions
In her book “The emotional life of populism” sociologist Eva Illouz explores the role of emotions in the formation and upholding of populist politics. She argues that authoritarianism is legitimized by fear while national conservatism thrives through disgust, ressentiment and a carefully nurtured love for one’s own country. The combination of these four emotions and their constant presence on the political arena can, according to Illouz, be a sign of populism. Populism doesn’t survive without emotions that motivate people to support their leaders way to power, even if it requires lies and possible dangers for opponents.
What distinguishes populist emotions from from other emotions is that they aim to divide the people and pit different groups against each other; they’re focused at creating division between citizens in the same country, and are formed by an idea about clear distinctions between groups. They encourage direct or indirect forms of violence, exclusion, censorship or physical violence. They revoke the legitimacy of other positions than their own, and are quick to perceive political rivals as traitors, and the are nurtured by stories of incoming threat.
In light of truth being inferior to ideological alignment the creation of a media ecosystem that can bypass the traditional media’s gatekeepers makes sense: it opens up for an easier spreading of disinformation on a number of topics, including climate change, but also feeds the emotions of ressentiment, fear and disgust. The common joke “I don’t care if it’s not true, it’s horrible anyway” says a lot about the emotional logic nurtured by the propaganda feedback loops.
The establishment of alternative media has also allowed for sowing seeds of doubt towards legacy media, a tactic commonly used in climate obstruction. If legacy media is corrupt and cannot be trusted, then people turn to alternative sources, and if those sources confirm one’s ideology, then there’s an ideological and emotional alignment that makes sense. Put in psychological terms: it feels good to read things that confirm our already established world view, it plays right into our confirmation bias. It does however also undermine the scientific authority and opens up for a post-truth society where feelings trumps facts. A society where your best ally isn’t science, but someone with shared interests in power.
Making allies to help spread disinformation all the way from the political top
In his dissertation, Vowles shows that the far-right feedback loops and alternative media landscape has won ground by also finding allies in business/market friendly think tanks and all the way in to partisan politics, via far-right politicians.
With the far-right party Sweden Democrats making their way into the Swedish parliament in 2010, and after the election in 2022 all the way to being a close collaborator to the current Swedish government (that consists of liberals and conservatives, but is dependent on the support of the Sweden Democrats to enact their politics), the bridge between the alternative media ecosystem and the absolute power has been completed. And the spreading of climate disinformation has found its way into the political top. Several of the digital alternative media established from the second half of the 00s, Vowles shows, have since been important tools for the spreading of climate denial as well as obstructing climate politics. But perhaps most importantly they’ve been important in shifting the perceived public opinion to keep the Sweden Democrat’s main issues high on the agenda, which in turn has facilitated their way to the political top.
Already at their early years in parliament, members of the Sweden Democrats started spreading doubt about climate change, using several of the climate delay discourse identified by Lamb and colleagues. With the Sweden Democrats now being part of the governmental collaboration and having real political influence over the national climate politics, Vowles notes that six different discourses of delay (individualism, whataboutism, the free-rider excuse, technological optimism, all talk - little action, and no sticks just carrots) can be found in the current agreement on climate politics between the government and the Sweden Democrats.
Though Sweden has a larger far-right media than several other European countries, a similar reactionary pattern of climate obstructive views and expressions has been found in several party manifestos of populist radical right parties in Europe, with an increasing attention to climate after the start of the Fridays for Future movement in 2018.
Knowledge resistance undermines democracy
The propaganda feedback loops feeding populist emotions while lacking reality gatekeepers all contribute to what researcher Jesper Strömbäck and colleagues call knowledge resistance: the tendency to resist available evidence, and more specifically empirical evidence. Resisting due to prior beliefs, due to facts challenging one’s social identity or due to actively only exposing oneself to evidence that might challenge one’s worldview. Several studies have shown that those who sympathise with the Sweden Democrats are more distrustful of legacy media and climate science than the general population. The yearly national survey by the SOM-institute in Gothenburg shows that media usage among those who disagree that climate change is primarily caused by anthropogenic emissions is an important factor in determining climate denial. People who consume less legacy media are more prone to deny climate science.
Abandoning science and knowledge is a threat to democracy, not only because democracy requires citizens that are informed enough about the society they live in and the politics that helps shape it. Similar to the media, truth checking gatekeepers, citizens act as gatekeepers by evaluating public policy, holding people in power accountable and cast informed votes.
If troll factories manipulate the public debate then there’s a risk that voting behavior won’t reflect people’s true opinions, and that politicians pursue policies that don’t reflect the citizens’ true opinions, creating a gap between what the people actually want and what politicians decide. As Strömbäck and colleagues write:
Furthermore, since politicians respond to public opinion, as expressed in polls and elections, misinformed citizens might create incentives for politicians to cater to their misperceptions rather than correct them, and in such a process, politicians might willingly or unwillingly help to reinforce misperceptions. Numerous studies also show that misperceptions influence citizens’ political attitudes and behavior.
Shaping politics away from the true public opinions
This is what seems to have happened in Sweden since the last election in 2022. As Vowles has noted, no less than six different kinds of discourses of climate delay can be found in the current agreement on climate politics. Policies that are estimated to increase Sweden’s emission with 10%. Yes, increase. When criticized, the Swedish climate minister has repeatedly said that this is what the citizens have voted for and that a government can’t pursue policies without a large public acceptance. The problem is that the citizens actually seem to want more progressive climate policies, not less. According to a recent national survey a majority of the Swedish citizens want to increase taxes on high emission products and services, use tax money to expand bicycle lanes and public transport. 49% want car free city centres. This is in line with several other surveys and studies that show that a majority support climate policies, and that a majority of people are willing to contribute to climate action.
Thinking that voters don’t want climate action is, in other words, a misperception - a misperception that may have been influenced by the active troll factories and manipulation of the public debate.
Action
As for delegitimizing the subsidized troll factories the most important action lies on the government: stop talking and start taking action. Words without subsequent consequences risk fueling the employed trolls to keep going. Human behavior is influenced by the consequences our actions get and the continuation of troll factories risk undermining democracy and create misperceptions of public opinions.
But everyone of us are responsible in gatekeeping and upholding truth, and being part of reality checking politicians, media and each other.
As historian Timothy Snyder writes in On Tyranny :
Believe in truth. To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, than all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.
He continues:
Make eye contact and small talk. This is not just polite. It is part of being a citizen and a responsible member of society. It is also a way to stay in touch with your surroundings, break down social barriers, and understand whom you should and should not trust.
Trolls may be loud on the internet, but most people out in the real world are decent. In order to not lose motivation we need to find ways of seeing that we are many who are willing to stand up for democracy, science and decency.
A last encouragement from Snyder, as much as us at Climate Psyched is to be active in organizations that express your own view of life. Not only to feel that you’re not alone, but also because it allows you to practice how to organize with others and support civil society.
Coming up next!
In March’s Climate Psyched post I wrote about research on climate activism and the recently published book Saving Ourselves by researcher Dana R. Fisher. Last week I met Dana for a lovely chat over zoom, where she explored questions related to the book. Parts of this conversation will be published in an extra edition of Climate Psyched in June - without a doubt something to look forward to!
Close to sick and also sinister for any far-right party anywhere to be using the word “Democracy” in its title. With due respect to thought provoking article still don’t get something: are we saying that fear and “disgust” (?) are causing normal people to turn awful and believe baseless lies? Why does not fear turn a human into an intelligently thinking wise person that gets exactly what is happening and sees the humane ways out? What do u think?
Mycket bra och informativ text! Tack