The widespread disregard for human rights and international law that seems to characterise contemporary politics may lead one to believe that politics is about power and not about ethics.  This belief, however, is wrong and dangerous.

It is wrong because it reflects a wrong understanding of what politics, power and ethics are all about. It is dangerous because, this wrong understanding leads to the justification of violence and oppression and pave the ways to autocracy. Ultimately, this belief tells more of the personalities of those who hold it than of what politics is all about. 

The ethics of power

The are at least two kinds of people that think politics is about power rather than ethics. First, there are those who think that ethics, and moral values play no role in politics, second there are those who think the role these play is only instrumental: an accessoire that makes the exercise of power less costly and more effective.

The best example of the former type is Stephen Miller, Senior advisor of US President, Donald Trump, who candidly enough declared to journalist Jack Tapper on CNN: “We live in a world (…) that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time…”.  

“Other less candid (but smarter?) leaders refrain from voicing such radical opinions, but hold on to the belief, that role of ethics is only instrumental to the effective exercise of power. In politics and elsewhere, these leaders pay lip services to values such as sustainability, compassion, equality etc. as a practice of image management or “branding” for themselves and the institutions they represent. As German scholar Tomas Klikauer argued in his critique of management ethics, “Ethics is simply a somewhat distant add-on to management like milk in a coffee, if needed at all.”

To argue their case, the apologists of the instrumental role of ethics typically mobilise the “classics”, especially the all-time favourite among them: The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. Despite his fame, this is an author that is read not as often and perhaps not as attentively, as it is quoted. In other words, there are reasons to believe that those who think of Machiavelli as a champion of the political ruthlessness, either haven’t read him or, if they did, they completely missed the point.

Machiavelli’s prescriptions do not deny the political relevance of virtue but quite the opposite. As Erica Benner argued in her book Machiavelli’s Prince: A New Reading: “At the Prince’s core is a biting critique of both ruthless realpolitik and amoral pragmatism, not a revolutionary new defence of these positions. Far from eroding ancient contrasts between good and evil, just and unjust, or tyranny and freedom, Machiavelli’s book shows readers the dire consequences that ensue when our language and practices fail clearly to distinguish them.”

Those who seek to justify ruthless behaviour in politics and elsewhere on grounds that only strength, deception and ultimately self-aggrandizement matter, know very little about power and how it works.

The instrumental (mis)use of ethics and the misinterpretation of as classic texts like Machiavelli’s Prince does not diminish the importance of ethics for the exercise of power, nor the important of these texts. It only tells of the quality of the leaders (mis)using them. These uses stand like a stain of filth on the fine clothes wore to compensate with appearances what is lacking in substance.

Those who seek to justify ruthless behaviour in politics and elsewhere on grounds that only strength, deception and ultimately self-aggrandizement matter, know very little about power and how it works. These people are not “realist”. They are just incompetent.

The instrumental use of ethics has entropic effects on the legitimacy of power and therefore on the effective exercise of power itself, because when the legitimacy of power declines, the roles of violence and fear increase. As history shows, there is always a point in which this equation delivers a negative result and people will choose to “fight” instead of “flight”.

Despite its falsity, this belief is appealing to leaders who lead without having neither the competences nor the integrity to do so. Still,  those who believe ethics are only instrumental to the exercise of power, to the manipulation of consent, and ultimately to oppression, should be aware of the power of ethics and of people’s inclination to eventually rebel against abuses.

The power of ethics

The power of ethics – the influence of moral principles and considerations on society, its institutions, on people’s lives and ultimately on the competition for political power – should not be underestimated. To acknowledge this power is important, not primarily for moral reasons, but for pragmatic ones – or as Machiavelli argued, for the effective exercise of authority.

In democratic regimes, this acknowledgement is particularly important because truly democratic leaders should be inspired by an ethic of democratic accountability (and e.g. pursue the long term welfare of the community they lead), rather than by an instrumental ethic: the manipulative use of moral principle and standards for the pursue of particular interests and the preservation of their influence.

To argue my point here I will rely on three metaphors: the glue, the compass and a promise (or a threat).

First the power of ethics can be thought of as a glue that keeps people together through consensus rather than coercion and bring about compliance through active participation instead of fear. Truly ethical behaviour by the leaders increases trust which becomes an important resource especially when the particular interests of some have to be sacrificed for the common good. 

Second, the power of ethics is the power of a compass that gives direction: it does not tell one where to go but it helps to get there rather than get lost. As Antti Kylliäinen recently argued in his book on ethics, Hyvänteossa, “values tell us what is good and worth thriving for” (“Arvot kertovat, mikä on hyvää ja tavoittelemisen arvoista”).

The power of ethics can be thought of as a glue that keeps people together through consensus rather than coercion and bring about compliance through active participation instead of fear.

If leaders neglect the influence of ethics and moral values, the individuals and communities that depends on them will get lost. When this happens, in politics and elsewhere, fragmentation, polarization and even violence increase because sacrifices are extolled for no other purpose than to preserve a leadership that has lost its direction and has no other purpose that preserving itself.

Third, the power of ethics can be described in relations to social functions similar to those performed by forms of speech like a promise (or a threat). It is perhaps an evolutionary fact that the constitution of society was originally inspired by the efforts of individual to increase their chances of survival by uniting or, as we would say today, hanging together so not to hang separately.

Whatever the reason, fundamental values and virtues participate to the human experience of life and its appeal depends on a promise about the possibility of a societal harmony: a reward for the effort of personal improvement with transformative effects on the relationship between the individual and society.

This promise, in other words, transforms the meaning of the social bond from a risk of subjugation and oppression to an opportunity for emancipation. The idea that “there is no such a thing as society” supports ideologies and policies that seek to isolate people: to break up collectives and let the individual stand alone and vulnerable against their rulers.

To “deny” society is to deny the “social contract” and pave the way to a social order based on fear. If the power of “ethics as a promise” is suppressed, the same will return as a threat – and once the Genie of fear is unleashed, however, the leaders that freed it are not immune from it.

These metaphors may perhaps also help to understand why the power of democratic ethics – a distinctive, post-feudal form that inspired and became politically relevant after the American and French revolutions – is what makes democratic regimes unique and uniquely resilient. In democracies, ethical leadership combines the power of ethics as a “glue”, as a “compass” and as “promise” transforming the people into the people that rule themselves or Demos: an indomitable community of individuals with the competences and the integrity necessary for self-rule.

Fundamental values and virtues participate to the human experience of life and its appeal depends on a promise about the possibility of a societal harmony.

The power of democratic ethics, in other word, is not an attribute of the leaders or the population. Rather it is an attribute of democratic politics: in essence, a relationship uniting the people and their leaders which establishes the Demos as a collective capable of deciding about own future and on the ways to bring that about.

In other words this is the power that establishes the actual rule of the people by the people as a practical possibility rather than a mere ideal. In this perspective, the resilience of democracies does not depend primarily on the qualities of their leaders but on the extent the importance of democratic ethics as the glue, the compass and the promise is acknowledged by both the people and their leaders.

When this acknowledgment collapses, because leaders deny or neglect the importance of democratic ethics and/or because the ethics of individualism and opportunism become influential, a democracy loses cohesion, direction and hope.  The leaders that effectively manage to interpret their role in relation to the responsibilities associated to democratic ethics, rather than the privileges of authority, are the “martyrs” of Demos: the “witnesses” of its existence and its political power. The rest are merely demagogues that corrupt the ideal of democracy.

Thinking the power of ethics in the age of polycrisis  

The subordination of ethics to power is nothing new. What is new is perhaps the combination of two tendencies. The first is the end of a useful fiction. In the years of the Cold War and its aftermath, the political support for democratic ethics in international politics was perhaps a fiction or facade – but a useful one, because it supported fundamental democratic principles, such as the rule of law and human rights, and the authority of institutions such as the United Nations  and the International Court of Justice that actually worked for a better world.

As the power of political actors that in the past supported this “fiction”  is currently used to undermine it, the result is not a better, more “honest” world but just the undermining of the values, the hopes and ultimately the “promise” these principles and institutions testified.

The other tendency, closely connected to the previous one, is the growing popularity of “transactional leadership” – a form of leadership in which authority is used to achieve more or less particular interests and short-term results – among political and corporate leaders, in domestic and international politics. The glorification of autocracy as “strong leadership” in both the state and the firm, by the likes of Stephen Miller, naturalizes the influence of toxic personalities in politics and in the working place. It inspires and justifies “organizational dehumanization”, the representation of people as “sacrificial citizens”, “extrajudicial killing” and abuses of the kind recently inflicted by ICE on the people in Minneapolis.

In the years of the Cold War and its aftermath, the political support for democratic ethics in international politics was perhaps a fiction or facade – but a useful one, because it supported fundamental democratic principles.

Independently from their declared ideological standpoints, too many political and corporate leaders around the world are uniting today in what philosopher Jacques Rancière called “the hatred for democracy”: a fundamental resentment for the very idea of the rule of the people by the people and for the ethics that supports it as a compass and as a promise.

For people of my generation and older – the Cold War & post WW2 generation respectively – the idea of ethics subordinated to power hurts because, at some point, in a not-so-distant past, we actually experienced the power of ethics. The world-wide consensus that created the UN and its Charter, the international law and human rights, was possible because our predecessors, having witnessed the horrors of the concentration camps and the nuclear effacement of innocent civilians, cared about the future of the generations to come, our present.

Those institutions were established as conceptual landmarks that, like monuments, are erected to testify of a past that must be remembered and its lessons heeded in order to avoid repeating tragic mistakes. That consensus expressed a union of ideals, directions and a promise that the leaders of today refuse to acknowledge.

I don’t think Machiavelli would consider this choice a wise one, nor the condition of a struggle for power deprived of meaning a desirable condition. And perhaps, he would join the  character “V” of the movie V for Vendetta and remind them that: “People should not be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people”.

PhD Matteo Stocchetti is docent in political communication at Helsinki University and Åbo Akademi. matteo.stocchetti[at]proton.me

Article image: rawkkim / Unsplash

Julkaisu The Ethics of Power and the Power of Ethics ilmestyi ensimmäisenä Politiikasta.

Where do the pressures to deploy Artificial Intelligence (AI) in higher education, despite its risks, come from? Is it the influence of corporate communication? Is it the compulsion “to do more with less” in response to governmental cuts to public education? Has the experience of the digital “revolution” in education, with its ideological illusions and disappointments, been already forgotten?

This incitation results from a dangerous mix: an interplay of ideology and ignorance. To argue my point, I will use the dramatis personae of the Good, the Bad and the Ignorant. In my plot, the Good epitomises the role of those who seek to avoid potential damage, the Bad those who seek to subordinate education to technocratic visions and the Ignorant those who ignore the warnings.

The Ignorant doesn’t know and doesn’t want to know the problems with new technologies if these problems make life more complicated. The Ignorant prefers to ignore the problem with the myth of technological determinism out of laziness, rather than interest, and resolve the problem of data privacy with the argument “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry”.

As the Ignorant presumably impersonates a rather large constituency, my suggestion is that the best chance for the Good to fight off the influence of the Bad consists in convincing the Ignorant about the huge risks associated to the hasty and uncritical deployment of AI in education. What is needed, in other words, is for the Good to popularize and disseminate the insights of research in the tradition of the critical studies of AI, such as scholars Jonathan Roberge and Michael Castelle, Pieter Verdegem and Simon Lindgren.

The dramatis personae of my narratives are ideals I have used to foster professional awareness and responsibility in connecting available knowledge to moral choices and political responsibilities. Although we are all, more or less in need of more reliable knowledge, the important distinction here is between those who seek, reject or ignore critical knowledge.

This knowledge constitutes the grounds for our moral choices, and our moral choices define our relative position in the politics of education. Once we learn this, we may also learn to develop more effective educational and pedagogical strategies to oppose the effects of technocentrism and of the manipulation of colleagues and students into a blind trust of new technologies.

Know the risks!

In the European Union, the digitalization of education has posed fundamental problems of data rights and ownership that are still largely unresolved. With the rapid development of AI these problems have largely been neglected and bypassed because AI is developed largely within companies outside the EU and too many school managers, teachers and students are now using this technology with a carefree attitude.

Too many don’t know or don’t care that large language models (LLM) behind of this technology are trained through methods that rise many privacy concerns. Afterall, granting free access to this technology to millions of people is a convenient method to advance corporate LLM training.  What this means, however, is that when we think we are using AI, the company owning its LLM is actually using us.  

AI is quickly becoming a fundamental element in the working infrastructure of virtually every industry. School managers in higher education and especially in universities of applied science incite students and teachers to use AI presumably in the belief that, by doing so, their institution will deliver more competent and competitive “human resources” to the industry.

Supporting this belief is not only the desire to increase the employability of their graduates, but also concerns about the future of their school as well, since a low employability rate may eventually lead to decrease funding and ultimately job cuts. Like with the digitalization of education before, also with AI, the name of the game is adapt or perish. As a result, the introduction of AI in higher education is more responsive to the corporate hype than to the warnings of independent research.

Simplifying to the extreme, I summarize these warnings below in relation to the institutional, educational and epistemic dimensions of the impact of AI and related technologies (e.g. ChatGPT, Bard, Open AI, Gemini, etc.) in higher education.

The introduction of AI in higher education is more responsive to the corporate hype than to the warnings of independent research.

First, and in relation to higher education as an institution, the uncritical deployment of AI enhances the influence, the ideology and visions of the groups that control this technology. Higher education has been dependent on corporate software for at least three decades. The introduction of AI marks the culmination of a process but also a qualitative change in the relationship between technology, teaching and learning. It marks the moment in the history of teaching/learning, in which corporate computational technology acquires fundamental cognitive functions with educational and pedagogical implications.

The delegation of these functions to AI is far from innocent as it forces formal education in an even deeper relationship with technological determinism, deepening its subordination to the ‘needs’, and ‘revolutionary’ transformations that corporate giants enforce on societies. The call for efficiency is only the peak of this ideological iceberg. Arguments such as “saving time, more effectively serving students, and more efficiently identifying plagiarists”, are instrumental to the introduction of AI surveillance of students and staff, transforming US universities into what scholars Mark Swartz and Kelly McElroy called “academicon”.

In the mainstream discussion about the “ethics” of AI, the influence of simplified and uncritical representations of what is needed for effective – and ethical! – embedding of ethical frameworks in AI technology, over-represents the perspective of engineering sciences and corporate managerialism, allows the tech industry to hijack the research agenda on AI ethics, and to use the notion of trust and trustworthiness as buzzwords, ultimately performing “ethics washing” and making the whole discussion about AI ethical guidelines and code of conduct rather useless.

In this way, the uncritical adoption of AI, risks to naturalize the instrumental notion of corporate ethics on the entire institution of higher education. After the digitalization, privatization and managerialization of higher education, the uncritical deployment of “trustworthy” AI is next step in the effort of subordinating the whole institution to the social purposes and visions associated with the neoliberal and technocratic imaginary of a fully automated social order in the service of the market – while keeping the same purposes, visions and imaginaries unquestioned and beyond the reach of transformative education.

In relation to education proper, scholars such as Simon Sweeney, Debby Cotton, Peter Cotton, and Reuben Shipway among many others, have argued AI facilitates cheating, disrupts conventional process of evaluation and, on the bright side, create an urgent need to re-think the nature and role of evaluation in higher education. But this re-think requires time! Until then, the uncritical deployment of AI in higher education is bound to be problematic in many respects.

Even putting the serious concerns about surveillance aside, the incitation of school managers to use AI whenever possible is based on an implicit “performative” pedagogy and learning strategies that prioritize results over process: performative instead of interpretative competences.

The uncritical deployment of “trustworthy” AI is next step in the effort of subordinating the whole institution to the social purposes and visions associated with the neoliberal and technocratic imaginary of a fully automated social order in the service of the market.

This pedagogy is problematic for the development of critical competences and undermines the pedagogical role of professional educators in the formation of critical subjectivities. The same implicit pedagogy, however, encourages the cognitive dependency on AI and related technologies while inhibiting the acquisition of the critical competences necessary for the “critical subjectivities” of democratic societies.

The uncritical deployment of AI poses epistemic risks because AI is an “epistemic technology”: a technology designed, developed and deployed to be used in relation to contexts, content and operations associated with the creation of knowledge. At the origins of these risks is the fact that  the creation of knowledge is influential in a variety of formative processes: from personal identities to social order and all that is in between. The creation of knowledge through algorithmic computation, for example, is based on a radical form of instrumental rationality that is very different from and potentially dangerous for the rationality required by the processes of deliberation that are so fundamental in democratic regimes.

On a collective level, the problem with the epistemic influence of AI relates not only to the spread of disinformation, but also to the deployment of instrumental rationality and the logic of computational efficiency in the resolution of complex social problems.

This solutionism is not innocent but hides the neoliberal and technocratic visions of a social order based on “post-political dogma” and dehumanization. And maybe one does not need to be familiar with Prof. Jürgen Habermas’ work on knowledge and human interest to understand the primacy of computational epistemics privileges control over understanding, and tyranny over democracy.  

To enforce the uncritical deployment of AI in higher education is a wrong response to the financial strangulation of democratic higher education. The incitation to “do more with less” is dangerous because it is apparently thought to be innocent and remains dangerously unchallenged if the warnings issued by critical scholarship are ignored. If those responsible ignore these warnings and have no interest in the broader context of the politics of education, it is understandable they believe they have no choice.

The Bad and the Technocratic Myth vs. Democratic Education

The neglect of the growing corpus of critical studies on the risks of AI in higher education, leads to a dangerous form of ignorance that strengthens the influence of technological determinism on the politics in education, and the agenda of people like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and others who seek to dismantle democracy and bring about the social order of techno–neofeudalism.

For the Bad, the defunding of higher education and the uncritical deployment of AI are opportunities to promote the technocratic myth in education, to undermine the formation of critical subjectivities and to complicate the learning of critical competences.

The Bad, in other words, combines defunding and AI as a unique opportunity to roll back democratic education and to enforce at least three ideas associated with the technocratic myth. First, technological progress is not a ‘social’ but a ‘natural’ process, deprived of political connotations, ideologically neutral, a force against which resistance is futile, and adaptation is the only ‘rational’ strategy, thus operating as a selective mechanism in the ‘survival of the fittest’.

Second, technological progress is the answer to social problems and, therefore, social change should be subordinated to technological progress and to the visions of corporate leaders and technocrats, allegedly capable of providing optimal solutions to social problems. Finally, the idea that technological advancement is a measure of ‘moral authority’, an indirect result of the Calvinist idea that earthly achievements are indicators of God’s predilection. 

For the Bad, the defunding of higher education and the uncritical deployment of AI are opportunities to promote the technocratic myth in education, to undermine the formation of critical subjectivities and to complicate the learning of critical competences.

These ideas are appealing in times fraught with uncertainty and fears because they come with a promise of reassurance: to address compelling problems of the present effectively, to resolves and eliminate political conflict and ultimately bring about the safety of a post-political, surveillance capitalism.

The influence of these ideas contribute to naturalize and thus bring about the vision of a fully automated and depoliticized social order reminiscent of that regime of “unfreedom” in which the possibilities of reducing inequalities and increase social justice and democratic participation are suppressed by the ideology and the “productive apparatus” philosopher and political theorist Herbert Marcuse described in his One Dimensional Man.

Here, as presumably elsewhere, when ideology mix with ignorance the result for democracy can be lethal.

What has to be done?

The influence of undemocratic visions and the technocratic myth that supports them in the politics of education is formidable but not yet hegemonic. Resistance is far from futile and the struggle to oppose the uncritical deployment of AI in higher education is an important one.

To oppose the influence of technocratic utopia and defuse the influence of the Bad, the Good must bring the Ignorant of her side. This means at least two things. First, learn more about the critical contributions in AI studies. Second, share this knowledge with colleagues and, whenever possible, with students. Third, find the time and energy to explain to those among us who prefer to ignore the risks why responsible educators and school managers cannot just dismiss them.

Last but not least, the Good should not underestimate the legal relevance of EU regulations which consider the use of AI in education as “high risk” and is a preliminary but nevertheless compelling source of recommendations and possibly sanctions.

PhD Matteo Stocchetti is docent in political communication at Helsinki University and Åbo Akademie, and principal lecturer at Arcada UAS.

Article image: Anna Shvets / Pexels.com

Julkaisu AI and the Politics of Higher Education – The Good, the Bad and the Ignorant ilmestyi ensimmäisenä Politiikasta.

Finland is one of the world’s leading countries for press freedom, ranking second in Reporters Without Borders world press freedom index in 2021.  Finland also scores highly in international rankings that measure civil and political rights.

Press freedom can be determined by indicators such as journalists not being arbitrarily detained or attacked, or their privacy invaded. Media companies enjoy light public regulation and owners seldom attempt to interfere with editorial processes. An independent self-regulatory body, the Council for Mass Media, oversees compliance with guidelines for journalists.

The rankings do not capture the full picture of threats.

Despite this, serious problems persist and there is an urgent need for wider, better informed public debate about free speech. The rankings do not capture the full picture of threats. Harassment of journalists is a major problem, and one of its consequences is self-censorship, which is often not a very visible threat.

Harassment of journalists

Harassment of journalists is a serious, long-term problem, which is undermining press freedom and the quality of public debate in Finland and elsewhere.

The case of journalist Jessikka Aro, who investigated Russian online troll activity and became the target of lengthy and intense harassment, is a prominent example. Although the case led to convictions, it highlighted flaws in how Finland protects journalists from harassment aimed at silencing them.

An appeal court ruling against one of Finland’s best-known journalists, Johanna Vehkoo, in a defamation case brought by a local politician was widely criticised by other journalists in 2020 for the court’s failure to give sufficient regard to the plaintiff’s political activities and harassing behaviour against Vehkoo, or to the fact that her comments were posted to a private Facebook group. The case will go to the supreme court.

Not only journalists targeted

Targeted harassment that aims to silence someone is not only a problem for journalists. A NATO report about online abuse of female Finnish government ministers recently made headlines. Police officers, judges and prosecutors are frequently targeted in Finland.

Data collected by Statistics Finland indicates that young people aged 16-24 encounter online harassment more than other age groups. In a study published in 2015 young Finns reported coming across more hate material online than their German and British peers.

Academic researchers are increasingly expected to have public visibility. Media has become an important arena where scientific experts compete for public recognition, and where they can become targets for harassment and hate speech. Growing concerns about harassment and resulting self-censorship led to freedom of expression organisation PEN Finland establishing a committee in 2017 to support non-fiction writers and researchers.

Data collected by Statistics Finland indicates that young people aged 16-24 encounter online harassment more than other age groups.

Many topics can make someone a target. Harassment frequently involves topics that tend to engage right-wing actors, for example immigration, feminism and human rights. The NATO report about online abuse of Finnish female government ministers found that the bulk of abusive messages originated from a cluster of right-wing accounts.

Wolves, a protected species, are an extremely polarising topic in Finland. Staff at Finland’s natural resources institute have been targeted through social media hate campaigns, unfounded crime reports and hostile phone calls. A recurring false story on social media claims that the institute deliberately moves wolves to new areas of the country.

Finland has won international praise for its resilience to disinformation, but as for example the activist group The Kollektiivi has shown, conspiracy theories, such as QAnon, can spread very fast, even in Finland. According to the UN, the spread of disinformation (deliberately shared inaccurate information) and conspiracy theories has increased enormously during the COVID-19 pandemic, underlining the importance of press freedom, accurate reporting, and fact-checking.

Improving the tone of public debate

The uneasiness about hostile public debates, hate speech and harassment has reached a level where Finland’s president Sauli Niinistö and other national leaders have repeatedly expressed concerns about the aggressive tone of debates. The president has noted that the way of public discussion has changed rapidly. In his view, the question is not only about a more pleasant atmosphere for dialogue, but of mutual understanding as the most important factor in Finland’s success.

An initiative of the public broadcaster Yle aims to improve the tone of public debates and increase understanding and trust in society.

Politicians who make statements designed to draw media attention and appeal to certain groups of voters are part of the challenge. For example, the leader of an anti-immigration party supported by close to 19 % of voters in a recent poll has been convicted of incitement against an ethnic group.

The public broadcaster Yle, supported by major foundations and partners such as Helsinki University, The Finnish Defence Forces and the Office of the President, recently launched a 5-year initiative, called “Well said”. It aims to improve the tone of public debates and increase understanding and trust in society.

Protecting freedom of expression and a need for wider public debate

If Yle’s initiative and other efforts to improve the tone of public debate are to succeed, they must avoid suppressing legitimate speech and they must engage a much wider audience.

Everyone has the right to express views that may be offensive, shocking or wrong, within the limits of the law. However, there is a significant difference between speech that attacks ideas, opinions or behaviours and speech that attacks the person – a distinction that is surprisingly often forgotten in democratic debates. This becomes particularly problematic when rhetoric seeks to achieve emotional involvement, rather than bring critical attention to an important topic or stimulate reflection.

The attention economy model dominates. When the aim is to achieve engagement and increase your number of subscribers or followers and increase your advertising income, sensationalism, outrage and tricks to make users click become the priority. Promoting controversial and shocking content maximises users screen time, generating data about the user and time to show advertisements.

If Yle’s initiative and other efforts to improve the tone of public debate are to succeed, they must avoid suppressing legitimate speech and they must engage a much wider audience.

Freedom of expression could be viewed as not just a democratic right, but as a democratic necessity. A wide variety of opinions and ideas are needed for society to function well. Everyone should be able to contribute to solving major societal challenges, so everyone should have the opportunity to make their voice heard. Freedom of expression should not be a right only for people with an “acceptable” opinion, even if the risk exists that someone abuses that right.

While Finland may win plaudits for resilience to fake news, there is much room for improvement in the educational system when it comes to building the competencies that encourage and enable everyone to exercise their right to freedom of expression.

Finding the right balance between free expression and other rights that can be affected by unlimited free expression can be challenging. As we have noted earlier, the boundaries of free expression are continuously being redrawn as societies evolve: because of this continuous, active and open societal debate is essential.

Freedom of expression should not be a right only for people with an “acceptable” opinion, even if the risk exists that someone abuses that right.

The negative tone of many public debates combined with potential concerns about becoming a target of harassment may make ordinary citizens reluctant to engage in debates. There is also a risk that people may perceive debates about major societal issues as belonging to those who get the greatest attention in the media, which is most often those with the most extreme views.

In Finland there is now a risk that freedom of expression becomes seen as a topic only for those on the outer edges of the debate, not as an issue that concerns ordinary people. This is perhaps the greatest challenge when it comes to current efforts to reduce polarisation and aggression – unless they succeed in engaging ordinary people, the national debate about freedom of expression risks being dominated by those with extreme views.

The authors are members of the independent Working Group on Freedom of Expression in the Digital Age.

Joy Hyvärinen specialises in freedom of expression. She is a member of the board of PEN Finland. The views in this article are her own.

Daniel Lindblom is a journalist and writer and is studying for a master’s degree at Helsinki University.

Matteo Stocchetti leads the Media and Education in the Digital Age (MEDA) research programme at Arcada University of Applied Sciences.

Julkaisu Finland is a world-leading press freedom country, but all is not well ilmestyi ensimmäisenä Politiikasta.