Hacking Democracy: Power and Propaganda in the Digital Age
CC Attribution - ShareAlike 3.0 Germany:
You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor and the work or content is shared also in adapted form only under the conditions of this
Kasparov, Garry
Guarnieri, Claudio
Bastion, Geraldine de
The internet’s ability to create and share information can be exploited to churn out a sea of misinformation or build large bodies of intelligence through the extraction of private data. As reports have long stated and reporting confirms: both state and corporate actors are leveraging social media and news outlets for their own political advantage and commercial profit – areas where legal boundaries and awareness are poorly defined – or transgressing against their institutional functions and causing huge collateral damage in the process. Political propaganda and cyberattacks have global reach, low costs and high deniability – but be aware: tracing and attributing sources is hard if you...
 Let me introduce both speakers to you. Gary Kasparov achieved international fame in 1985 when he became the world's youngest chess champion at 22. He hold this position until he retired in 2005. The chess master is also known for his prudent critical position and as being the founder and chairman of the pro-democracy organization United Civil Front. Kasparov has been a figurehead in the opposition of Putin's government. Please give him a warm welcome. Thank you, Gary. Claudia Granieri extensively researched and reported human rights violations in the digital realm in many countries, including Iran, Azerbaijan, and even the USA. He works as a senior technologist and research at Amnesty International and previously also as a senior research fellow at Citizen Lab, University of Toronto. He is also the co-founder of Security Without Borders and was selected by Forbes amongst the 30 under 30 honorees for 2016. Please give him a warm welcome. Gary, you're going to go first for your impulse talk. We're very excited. If you want, you can also use the pot. Okay. Good afternoon. Thank you very much. I'm Haroldin for the introduction. I have to say that I'm quite familiar with the topic we're discussing today because I guess it was my bad luck that I grew up in the Soviet Union and then spent a considerable part of my life in increasing the authoritarian Putin's Russia. But also probably it was kind of a blessing because I know what is to live under constant surveillance. And now what we're seeing is that the techniques that have been part of the Soviet system and the Putin's Russia or other non-democratic countries, these techniques now are being spread around the world. And we'll of course talk about attempts and sometimes very successful attempts of Putin's regime or other non-democratic regimes to push their agenda in the free world by using the very technology that's invented in the free world. And before we move there, I want to make sure that we clearly understand all the consequences of governments having access to these modern, very powerful, very intrusive technologies. And it goes without saying that the power that is uncontrolled without checks and balances always tries to expand. And it's more about institutions that can protect us as individuals. And those who think that it's fine for, say, Obama, or Land or Merkel to have these access to massive surveillance programs and thinking that it will not be okay for, say, Trump, Le Pen and Petri, they are part of the problem. Because they, again, they try to separate between individuals, not recognizing that there is the fundamental problem with the government. And having said that, I still want to make very clear that it's not just about the collection of data, but it's also what can be done with this data. And sometimes we are making general assumptions. We know that media is bias. So some media support left-wing candidates, some media support right-wing candidates. The bias is not censorship. And the surveillance, when you have a court oversight, it's not persecution. And the corporate data collection, it's not yet stasi. And just a few slides I wanted to share with you. One is the, it's a press freedom map. So as you can see, green is free, yellow is not free, and red is bad. As you can see, green is not doing well. And if you recognize that, you know, it's visually is not that bad, because America, Canada, and Australia are quite big. But when you look at the absolute numbers, they are quite devastating. There is a certain year's decline in the index of freedom of speech. And today, as we speak, less than a certain percent of world population live in the countries that are, that have freedom of speech. So and why it's vital, because we all know that the freedom of speech is absolutely crucial in checking the government and offering us protection. That's not surprisingly that press is called sort of the fourth branch, fourth branch of power. And what is most amazing now, this is the, when we see this map, and especially if you look at this progress, or it is a decline, it has been coincided with the spread of internet. So it sounds like a paradox, because internet, you may compare it to the printing press, which in the 15th century helped to promote new ideas, and the 16th century was vital to, for the success of reformation. So how come that when people have access to more information, they, you know, they, we are all seeing that the actual freedom of speech is being declined? And the trick is that the governments from the non-democratic countries, they realize that they can use internet for manipulations, and they can actually create new tools that are being presented as tools for spreading information, they actually limit people's ability to understand what's really happening. And moreover, moreover, many of these devices, they are allowing governments to go after people to find those who are spreading dissenting views, and eventually to prosecute them. And that's one of the, that's one of the big issues that I'm sure we'll discuss today is the, is a double standard in the behavior of big corporations that are expressing their concerns about individual privacy in the free world, but at the same time ready to comply with draconian regulations, in countries like Russia or China or elsewhere, by protecting their business and in danger at the same time, the lives, real lives of people who are relying on these technologies to spread their message. Now just a quick demonstration how non-democratic regimes, in this case Putin's regime, use this technology to enhance their agenda. That's the botnet. And so what is interesting about this one, all these botnets are talking about the sudden death of a Russian ambassador in the United Nations, Vitaly Cherkin. The interesting thing is that when you look at the history of all these botnets, they have been supporting Donald Trump, different, you know, under different names like Deplorable Judy, Trump voter, etc. So it's quite amazing that this Trump voters quote, unquote, they suddenly expressed such a great interest in the death of Russian ambassador in the United Nations. And it's also interesting if you follow, if you had a chance to follow the elections in the United States, so you could see that's the, how the lines that have been first adopted by Kremlin propaganda in Russian, they have been gradually moving into the English, English websites, or Twitter accounts, or Facebook accounts, pretending that it's a massive support for one candidate, while in fact you can find out that most of these accounts, they all went back to just one master. And it's also interesting that's how you can, you know, the ways you can identify these accounts. Of course, if you follow this bunch of accounts and you could see that an American who voted for Trump supports Brexit, okay, supports Le Pen, okay, but suddenly the same accounts supports Bashar al-Assad, or Putin's invasion in Ukraine. Then you ask questions, how come, you know, it's, if this is an American patriot, I want to see him or her. And it is also important to just to remember that is, and I put it on one of my very popular Twitter blogs. So the point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda, it is to exhaust your critical thinking to annihilate truth. But you know, that's a very different way to suppress critical thinking, contrary to what was used in the Soviet Union. When we had no access to information by the newspaper Pravda, called Truths, what an irony, or Channel One. Now there's abundance of information. It could be a flood of news, but that somehow works in the opposite direction. Because there's only one truth and there are zillions of ways to lie. And that's one of the classical ways how it's being used by Putin's propaganda. That's a story about MH17, the Malaysian boy that has been shot by Russian missile in Ukraine. And from the very beginning it was very clear who did it, but instead of simply denying it or just presenting one story, Kremlin came up with many stories. And sometimes the stories could be shown on Russian television one after another. For instance, one story told about Ukrainian missile, another one about Ukrainian jet fighter. Then there were stories about the plane carrying dead bodies that were dropped, you know, to blame Russia for. But it doesn't matter how many stories they came up with, what is very important that they created a massive block of this misinformation that simply made many people unaware where they should look for the truth. So I think it's now time for us to realize that it's something that we have to deal with. This is not something that will go away because success is the best example to be imitated. And since Putin and the likes saw quite successful implementation of their theories and then eventually practical actions, first in Russia to demolish Russian oppositional internet, second in neighboring countries, namely attack on Estonia in 2007, and then elsewhere. So that's why everywhere, including this country, you all are subject for this campaign of misinformation and I hope that we'll realize that those are the real threats that will require combined response from the public, government and corporations to understand how we're going to deal with the threat that might simply undermine the very foundation of our democracy. Thank you. Thank you very much, Gary. Claudio, may I ask you to go next, please? Hello, everyone. So I don't have any slides, but I have a little speech. So as we said, the manipulation of the public opinion clearly isn't anything new that is generally achieved by repeating over and over a specific message in the public or in the media to install a particular narrative that serves someone or someone else's interests. This commonly manifests with catchphrases which, just like in commercial advertisement, is repeated endlessly until it becomes permanent. We're seeing, for example, with the blood in his hands rhetoric that was used against Snowden, we're seeing it recently in the UK with the coalition of Kales which is being used against the opposition and we've seen it countless times with Trump during the 2016 election, you know, with all locker half and so on. So the public is fundamentally a consumer of political advertisement and social media has become to some degree an extension of this in the sense that today's internet economic incentives foster an environment of click baiting and instant gratification which, while it was originally leveraged for online advertisement and money making, it has skillfully turned out to be also perfect for catchphrase politics and particularly in a moment like this of a resurgence of populism. And with social media becoming increasingly a primary platform for the consumption of information, it also clearly becomes a field where propaganda and misinformation is played as Gary just explained. But the internet isn't a space in vacuum, it's quite simple reflection of society with all the goods and bads that come with it. And with much talking on fake news which quite frankly personally I think is a term that should be abandoned and on bots, social media bots, I think we're seeing a concerning trend towards a sort of techno-fatalism that finds in technology a scapegoat for significant societal issues that as a result invokes some kind of techno-solutionism which is quite just as problematic. For example we're seeing some movements toward the regulation of content online, for example in Germany where it is my understanding that a law was passed that enforces fines of tens of millions of euros to companies who fail to enforce some appropriate filtering of content and countering of fake news. Problem is that these are complex phenomenons that require a deep and dedicated study to fully understand. There is no solid indication yet of what is the measured impact of fake news and Twitter bots and while they might very well have some and I'm sure it does, it is imperative that before implementing for the laws and controls we have a good and documented view of what is the nature of these phenomenons and of these problems. So firstly these are issues that need to be analyzed also in the geographical and social political context in which they manifest. The impact of such phenomenons as it might be fake news and false news or junk news and Twitter bots will differ between a repressive state with serious dangers involved in political manifestation and say a democratic country where the effects are way less visible. And these different might warrant different reactions and different countermeasures. Firstly it's reassuring that to know that humans are still leading the political debates and on the matter of false news for example Facebook recently stated that while we acknowledge the ongoing challenge of monitoring and guarding against information operations which is their term for false news and propaganda online, the reach of non-operations during the US election of 2016 was statistically very small compared to the overall engagement on political issues and I think that's a positive analysis. In regards to the French elections instead the Oxford University published a paper that assessed the distribution of news over social media and they ran up to the first round not the following and found that I quote again the largest proportion of content being shared by Twitter users interested in French politics comes from professional news organizations. Information from political parties, government agency and other experts is also being used. Still 19.6% of the content being shared involves other kind of political news and information yet the largest proportion of that content is not junk news but citizen generated content. And not only that but it also stayed for example in regards to Twitter bots that by candidate it appears that most of the candidate have roughly the same number of highly automated accounts generated traffic about them. And yet these automated traffic amount to roughly 7% of the total. All this is to say that we need to step back a little and look at it with perspective in order to find appropriate and proportionate solutions. A response driven by anxiety and panic is unlikely to be a constructive one and we want to end up in a place where companies instead of courts or the public opinion are entitled to decide what is rightful content and what isn't. And by transition we don't want to create regimes of censorship because it is not by filtering that we solve the bigotry and populism that manifests these issues. Additionally we might not realize that while implementing certain restrictions or control over some technology that might seem threatening to us we might cause an unintended impact on the lives of others in other parts of the world. For example I cracked down on the right to anonymity online and enforcing service providers to police that which is something that is being discussed as a way to counteract Twitter bots. Wouldn't that mean for example that some human rights activists in another country will not be able to do their work safely online just because they are not able to use pseudonyms anymore. That said it is important that the public is well informed and that it is not deceived. And when we get to the point where social media will in fact be the primary source of news and by my reading we are not quite there yet thankfully. The real answer to these issues will have to be education and media literacy. Technology can't be trusted. Technology needs to be understood. And we need to make sure that especially generations to come will be prepared to enter in their political life with the right understanding of how technology works and how social media and media in general work and how they can be influenced. And to make sure that they are taught the value and equipped with ways to actively seek diverse and accurate information. And that is not just a response to the issue of news but it really is just a simple requirement for nurturing open minds. There are however some considerations that need to be made to ensure that the technology and the internet can contribute positively rather than negatively to the betterment of society. Firstly we need to rethink online advertisement which besides being a toxic market that is corrosive to the individual right of privacy there is also a key enabler of the twist dynamics that we just spoke about and that we will continue discussing. It is online advertisement after all the primary cause of click baiting with all the consequences it brings. Secondly we need to engage with the tech giants and require an opening of their systems of algorithmic decision making. We just cannot rely on systems that select, prioritize and provide information that operate in ways that are clogged by state secret and even if those algorithmic decisions might not be an immediate issue right now they very likely will be in the future. And as we know rolling back technology which has been in place for years is extremely hard and we rather should make sure that we build them with all the ethical and social considerations in mind from the very beginning. If I still have a couple of minutes I just want to make one last remark which is off from the topic of propaganda and access to information and speak for a moment about the true hacking of elections as we technologies understand it. And that is that the hack of electronic voting machines as com again in the last year is a potential threat to the integrity and legitimacy of democratic elections. The good news is that for example the American elections did not get hacked. The bad news is that particularly if electronic voting becomes more popular future ones might very well be. And I as many other friends from the hacker community have always been vehemently opposed to the use of electronic voting machines and for good reasons. Firstly electronic voting attempts to solve a problem that just doesn't exist. With existing structure using paper ballots we normally get a preliminary count in a matter of hours already. The benefits provided by a more automated counting process are not only questionable but they simply do not outweigh the risk that the gravity of the risks that are involved. And secondly we just don't have a voting technology that is better than paper right now. Electronic voting machines are normally proprietary and close systems with a stack of layers that means both hardware and software for which the integrity simply cannot be guaranteed. And again we would have to trust that technology. Paper ballots on the other hand not only are extremely hard to hijack at scale but their custody and count heavily rely on not trusting anyone by involving multiple and diverse people overseeing the process which has been thoroughly audited for decades. Now on top of all of this we're starting to see discussions and in some places even adoption of online voting that to me is just complete madness for which I don't think is even necessary to spend any words on. It's just crazy enough by itself. So Germany has banned electronic voting in 2009 as I understand and that is great. Keep it that way. This is however a problem that is real in many other places and that it's a possibility that could creep back on us in the future at any time. And while it might not have been presented as a concrete risk yet it is exactly in moments like this with populism and extremism on the rise that we might see bigger incentives in attempting to really subvert democracy and for that we shall be prepared. Thank you. Thank you very much Claudio. So we have about 30 minutes left for our discussion and I definitely want to leave time for your questions so I'm just going to ask a couple up here on stage before I ask our kind helpers to come around and share microphones with whoever raises their hand and makes themselves visible. I'd like to start in a bit of a different place before we jump right into the topic of Russia's influence on Western democracies and the influence of trolls and other technical procedures on that. I'd like to begin in a different place by asking you Gary, I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of linguistic relativity. It's the concept that the language you speak or the realm that you have your experience from also affects the speaker's view of the world. How do you think, assuming one of your languages is chess, how do you think that has influenced your view of the world? I have to admit that I never think about chess being a language. So though I'm listening to you to a formulation of your question, I think yes, it was a way of self-expression. So by doing something like chess where the end result justifies your whole game and your preparation, so it's all about winning or losing. So it definitely shapes your character. I think it's not just the means of expression, which is in this case in a very specific language, but also the end result. So it's not just the process, but the final result that will eventually prove whether your decision making in the process was correct or not. So I tend to view many things in the world based on my experience. So more than 10 years ago, I came up with a book, How Life Immediate Chess, where I tried to translate my chess experience into the general decision making formula. I'm going to be interested to see if we can manage to tie this back at the end to see is this have an impact perhaps on the different strategies we choose for our political activism. Claudio, I'd like to ask you the same question. Do the technical languages you speak influence your view of the world? I hope not in the sense that my hope is that having a good understanding of technology doesn't make you look at society through the lens of technology, but rather helps you looking at technology through the lens of society. Meaning having a way to technocentering approach to the public sphere and the world generally, it's not a very positive thing in my opinion. It should be the reverse where society should influence or change your views about technology should work, if that makes any sense. So let's jump into the topic a little bit. I'm going to use a quote that you gave, which is the chess is a game of certain rules and uncertain outcomes, whereas politics in Russia is a game of uncertain rules and certain outcomes. Putin has a very strong position globally. So I'm going to very naively ask you the question, why this strategy that seems very often if you follow discussions and different media for extensive number of guardian articles on this that it might not seem as the most sort of refined strategy of exercising power and influence over the world? Look, first of all, I always feel uncomfortable when people try to compare Putin or the dictators to chess players. I feel that I have to come to rescue the integrity of my game because chess is the 100% transparent game. So you can see the resources that are available for you or for your opponent. You don't know the intentions of your opponent, but at least you know what they can use to do harm to you or to protect against your threats. Dictators don't operate in transparency. Dictators prefer uncertainty. So that's why I always prefer to compare Putin and alike to poker players because in poker you can have a very weak hand, but you can win the game if you bluff, if you raise the stakes and if you have strong nerves. And all Putin has been doing, I wouldn't call this strategy, it's a simple tactical game of survival. For him to survive, he must look strong. That's the rule, number one for every dictator. They can make many mistakes except one because if dictator looks weak, he's being taken over by his own cronies. Now what can dictator do if the economy in his country is falling apart as in Russia? Oil prices are around $50 a barrel. It will never go back to 100. So Russia is running huge deficit. And at this time, Putin is making cuts on social security, on housing, on education, on everything except military security and propaganda. That's a war budget. So he has made, and that's a conscious decision, confrontation with the free world, a core element of domestic propaganda. So if I understood you correctly in your opening remarks, the difference between Cold War Times and the propaganda that we're seeing today is the sheer mass of noise being created. But it's not only, it's the Cold War was a fight between two futuristic visions of the future. I'm not here to defend the vision from the Soviet side. It was a fake. It was utopia. But at least it was an attempt to present something that will work in the future. That's why Soviet Union made massive investments in space program. There was a competition. Putin's Russia is not competing with the free world. It's Putin's propaganda is more like a cult of death. It's all about us being surrounded by the global evil and only Vladimir Putin, a white knight can defend Mother Russia against this global conspiracy. So that's why Putin doesn't sell an ideology. Putin basically is looking for any fringe groups that can help his agenda, which is to spread the chaos, spread doubts, annihilate critical thinking. And that's why he can go equally to far left or to far right. Anything that attacks the European Union, NATO, the unity of democratic countries, works for him. That's why he's equally comfortable with Le Pen and Melon shown, with Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn, or with AFD or Delinke in Germany. Right. Claudio, you said already that according to your research and estimations, this is not necessarily just a technological issue we're talking about and that automated communication is just a fraction of the issue that we're looking at. Myself, like reading up on the topic, one has the feeling that it's rather the issue that we're facing in the army of people rather than an army of automated technology. Is that a correct impression you would say? I think it depends on the context and on the country. I mean, the issue of propaganda online and bots and so on is not uniquely a Western issue. You would see it reflected in many other places and it changes depending on which place you're looking at. Some of the research that I've read, for example, and recently they pointed out, for instance, that while there is in some cases a level of automation, it might be circumspected to a few accounts with a large following that have been created and nurtured over the time to spread this message. In other cases, you have a full-on automated kind of army of bots. In other cases, for example, in China, there is some researchers that pointed out that there exists what they call the 50 cent army, which is literally a large number of people employed to spread the regime messages online and paid allegedly 50 cent per message. That's where the name comes from. So it really depends. I don't know if you're both familiar with the example of Jessica Arrow. She's a Finnish, I think, journalist who's been writing about Russian politics, but also the phenomenon of Russian trolls. She's one of these very well-reported, publicly vocal cases of somebody who was extremely attacked and has then followed, at least from her, also journalistic, non-technological perspective these attacks. When you listen to her speaking, one has the idea that there's sort of an army of people, not an army of automated bots, ready to lash out at every journalist in every country around the world in their national language. That makes also, it seemed a little bit crazy, like how big is this troll army? No, look, it is not crazy if you look at the ratio of investment and return. It's much cheaper than buying TV ads, and what's also very important is the huge amount of deniability. So you do these things, but technically you can always deny this is not us. It's fairly effective because you can simply downgrade any debate. Maybe it can serve for us as a measure whether the issue we raise is important, because I know that when I put something there, so the moment I see army of trolls attacking me, by the way, I have a good measure because I have my social both in Russian and English, and if I say similar attacks with the same lines, I understand where it comes from. But this is the way they decided to turn debate, an open debate, into a clown show. So that's why they were so successful, because it's much easier to destroy. It's much easier to debilitate the debate than make some reasonable points. And many people, good people, they see this, ah, there's all this dirt there, and they just walk away. This is the whole point. And whether it's 50 cents a person, whether it's $5 a person, it's still very cheap compared to anything else that you can do with this money. So you work at Amnesty Claudio. Is there other, you know, there was said we need to all collaborate to overcome this phenomenon. That's always so easily said, but are there programs for people like yourself, for instance, working with people like Jessica, what are the kind of corporations between technologists, human rights advocates, and people who are the targets of such trolling activities? I mean, the sad reality is that journalists are threatened and mobbed all the time everywhere, regardless of what happens online and offline. So there obviously exist numerous organizations and network to work to support them. Amnesty, you know, free press and limited reporters without borders. There are a great number of them. The kind of new reality of these threats and mobbing happening online is that now we have to, you know, interface with others, like with the tech companies and the tech giants and so on. I'm asking also because you pointed out, like, at least that's how I understood there's like a gap of research. You know, we so often are very ready to assume this is coming from there and this is coming from this, but in fact we have very little data to back up these assumptions. And there are a number, there are many, many cases out there though that seem worth researching, just, you know, having named one as an example. Yeah, I mean, there's, this is new and old in different ways, right? In the sense that the technology behind running these campaigns is not new, it's old. As I was saying, it has been existing for a while as a way to leverage online advertisement and defrauding it to some degree. So the technology itself is old. What is new, and I was saying, it's understudied and requires the greatest scrutiny is this new application of it. In the context of, you know, democratic elections, journalism, you know, threatening activists online and so on. And that needs more, more study to understand this new dimension and like what is the impact of it. So yeah, it will require, I think, quite some time before we get a good understanding of how much of a threat it is and how better to counteract that. I'm going to open to the audience in just a minute. I'm just, you know, what really kind of struck me also reading your description for the session and a couple of other things that we talked about in preparation that we're so incredibly stuck in this old world order. Like I am a child of the Cold War. I grew up in West Berlin. And it just seems sometimes really bizarre to me that it seems that none of these power structures have changed. And in fact, are rather even regressing. And that it would be so, like I said, Russian is super strong position. There are a lot of common enemies, one could say, or common challenges globally. And instead we're sort of regressing into a strange... Wait, wait, wait, wait. Did I hear super strong position? I mean, this is... I'm really annoyed when I hear, oh, Vladimir Putin's so strong. Is he more dangerous than Joseph Stalin in 1948? I mean, you grew up in West Berlin. So when Americans and Brits opposed Stalin take over, attempt to take over in Berlin in 1948, are you seriously telling me now that Vladimir Putin is so dangerous? Putin's Russia is a pale shadow of Soviet Union under Stalin or his successors. It's what we have to make. But yet we're here on stage discussing his influence over all our western democracies. No, no, no, no, no, no. Look, exactly because there's lack of political will here. Because you don't have people who are ready to take stand against him. If you compare 1948 or 1962 or even 1979, today the free world has the overwhelming military and economic advantage over the unfree world. So just look, who are the Putin's allies? He could Stalin and they controlled half of Europe. They had allies across the world. Who are Putin's allies today? He's Bullah Hamas Iran Bashar al-Assad. Who shows the whole rest of the world just falling for an incredible terrain? Because it's called complacency. Don't try to cover your indecisiveness, complacency. Very often cover this by so-called strength of Vladimir Putin. He's doing it out of desperation. He doesn't have the same military power or the same network of people. What he has, he has a lot of money and he has new weapons. He knows how to weaponize refugees, how to weaponize press, but that's not the same threat. Because that was in 1948 or 1962 or 1979. And yet, why is there this confrontational approach then? Why is there not a seek for more cooperation? Why is Russia not, if it's actually in a week as a position as you suggest reaching out to other powers and creating new allies, but really alienating the rest of the world? Because I just said 10 minutes ago, Vladimir Putin doesn't care about strength or weakness of Russia. He wants to stay in power. He has so much blood on his hands, so much corruption. He has nowhere to go. He will stay there until he's being kicked out. And he knows the only way to stay in power is to step up confrontation. That's why he committed crimes in Ukraine. That's why Russian troops committing genocide in Syria. That's why he will go anywhere to make sure that his position in Russia, in the Russian people is not compromised. If this is the house of cards that Putin is living in, what will take it to blow it down? To show that he is weak, to call his bluff, to make him look like a loser. He lost in France, good news. He lost in Holland. I hope he will lose in Germany. He's losing now in the United States. That definitely weakens his position in Russia. Okay. I'm going to add one more question before opening to the audience, because this is actually very dear to my heart. If you say he lost in France, I think that the suggestion of the complete undermining of our democracies is a danger in itself. We live in a day and age where people are alienated from their states and from politics, where people are disengaged and people do not care, where the majority people do not go to vote. If we keep suggesting this idea of this deep state, this intangible powers that we cannot influence and control as citizens, aren't we moving? Are you twisting my words? No, I'm asking you a question. No, it's not a deep state. Vladimir Putin openly supported Marie Le Pen. There's official loan, quote, unquote, of 9 million euros, plus I'm sure millions of euros donated to him. But you said Putin lost in France. That's not a deep state. Yes. So, he openly supported Putin's actions in Ukraine. Melon Sean has been arguing that the borders in Europe can be revised. So three out of four leading candidates were basically pro-Putin. And one-one. So I even said that Putin bet on three cards out of four. So the point that I was making is that in your statements and also in some of the statements that I have read, the suggestion of this outer influence on our Western democracies today, I find is a very critical one because in the end, it is still the populace of these countries making the decisions and voting. And by giving them the idea that they're being tricked and fooled and not in control, aren't you encouraging this idea that people are actually not the ones in power? Aren't we feeding into what Putin is doing in a way through that as well? No, actually, we're bringing them in. So what's happened in Holland one year ago when they voted in the referendum for Ukraine that has been initiated by Hurt Wilders, I'm sure, with a whisper from Moscow, 32 percent of Dutch voters showed up and 62 percent supported Wilders. At the Dutch elections, 81 percent showed up, turned out, and he got less than 14 percent. So we saw the results. Putin was successful in Brexit. Putin was successful in Italian referendum in some elections in Europe and, of course, in the United States. Now, people realize the danger. People realize how fake news, you may call it negative advertising, is working in his favor, and they are more actively engaged. I think it's good news that we see more active engagement of people. We see now America is awakening. People are paying attention to the independent judiciary, to the separation of power. American press now is just really going up in administration and creates a good example for the rest of the world. Hmm. OK, let's see what you guys have to say to this before we continue the debate up here. I see a lot of hands going up, so let's have the first intervention come from, yep, you. Can we have at least one or two more people going around with microphones in the audience, because it's such a big room, please. Please go ahead. Which number? B1. B1. Can we have the microphone? B1, switch on, please. OK, we're bringing you a new microphone. Sorry for the delay. The mic was hacked. Hello. Now I have a question to Mr. Kasparov. First one is, do you think that Putin will try to influence the German election this year, and how can we as a society prepare? And the second question is, do you expect any surprises for next year's presidential elections in Russia? Thank you. Should I answer the question? Yes, please. Do I think it's raining now? It's just, it's like asking public opinion, do you think today is Monday or Tuesday? So this is, there's certain facts. Putin has been doing it for years, and they have been trying desperately to merge Russian voting block here, because there are many Russian speakers who will vote in general elections with organizations like Pegida and AFD. Those are the facts. And you can look at Russian propaganda in Russia, or you can actually look at the Russian control media in Germany, what they have been doing. Of course he is aiming at Angela Merkel, because he knows that she's instrumental in keeping sanctions. I very often call her the last man standing. So removing Merkel is a number one priority, and Putin is not even hiding this. That's what Russian propaganda has been doing. Now as for elections in Russia, I think I overheard you. There are no elections in Russia. There's a day in the calendar, so that's when people technically can go and prove what the criminal already knows, because of course results of the elections will be announced. The criminal already said they are heading for so-called 70-74 million. 70% turnout, 70% support for Putin. Lady over there please. Thank you. I'll answer in English, yes. My question is, we have seen young Russians coming out after Navalny was publishing the site about corruption cases around Mr Medvedev. Is there a digital educated generation of young Russians willing to hack Russian state sites as a form of opposition? Thank you very much for this question, because that also adds to my argument about so-called strengths of Putin regime. What we saw on March 26, just a few weeks ago, massive demonstrations. And when I said massive, it was really massive, because some people here could say, oh, we saw 30,000 people in Moscow. 30,000 people in Moscow, it's more than 5 million here, because they go to the streets knowing that they can be arrested, beaten, and just something terrible can happen to them. This is not a demonstration that police protects you, it's where police goes against you. And the fact is that most of these people, about 100,000 across Russia, or young people, tells you that we have a new generation from the millennials that are not affected by Kremlin propaganda, by not channel one, channel two, channel three, but they are following Alexei Navalny and other leaders on the Internet, and it gives us hope that they realize that the Putin system offers no future. And that means that regime is inherently weak, that's what we knew already, and they are running out of funds, running out of money, because Putin has to make sure that his oligarchs cronies are happy, so that's why he always takes money from the Treasury and distributes among them. So for me, it's all a matter of Putin still looking strong. The moment he will look like a loser, I'm sure many things will happen in Russia, because no matter how strong dictator looks like today, it's all of a sudden. I always say there are bad news and good news. Bad news, I don't know when and how Putin leaves the office. The good news he also doesn't know. Over the FDs. Hello. Thank you for your presentation, everyone. I had a question about diversity and inclusiveness. I guess on the two panels, Claudio and Jeldin, I would be interested to hear more about how we can create inclusive communities to be able to push back stronger against some of the top level states, whether it's APTs or other actors. I'm sorry, Kasparov. I'd rather you had been quoted saying women by their nature are not exceptional chess players. I think this trickled down into your view of geopolitics and geostrategic relations. If you thought that actually part of the solution is not just to push back against strongmen in authoritarian states, but also to be able to have more women and a more diverse inclusiveness into the general democratic system and to be able to maybe start fielding female candidates instead of male candidates. I can't understand. Did I understand the question? I think we're on moving toward a more positive outlook. I'm just going to try to repeat what you said, Matt, and you can jump up if I'm doing anything wrong. The question to us on this side of the panel was how do we create more inclusive and diverse communities? How do we work together to strengthen democratic powers to step up against what we're speaking here on stage? I think the question directed to you is, should we focus all of your energy toward this one target? Should we not try to see how we need to have other strategies which is to build up new leaders, especially female leaders, to take a place at the ones we're criticizing today? You're not good. You first, please. The question was again, how do we create communities? Give diverse step toward building up a power that can step up towards what we're seeing today? That's how I understood it. That's a million-dollar question, man. I don't think I have a really good answer to that in the sense that creating effective, inclusive, and diverse communities is already a problem in and of itself. But alone then make it so good enough to stand against powers and defend democracy. Generally then, I would abstract it a little and say, what I think is important is that there is personally an effort in abandoning some kind of apathy towards these issues and starts dedicating communities as exists already all around the world in analyzing these problems that we're talking about besides just amplifying them without reason. We need to analyze these issues by aggregating technologies with journalists and artists and so on in communities like this to discuss these issues and decompose them in a way that we can then understand them. After we've done that, then we can devise ways to make so that these communities can hold these powers to account. But other than that, I'm not sure of that million-dollar answer, man. I think I would just like to add that I think we need to stop perpetuating the idea that we are all powerless victims in the societies that we live in and give people the feeling that they can regain agency to influence the world they live in rather than build up frustration and fear and lash out at others. I'm a bit puzzled to receive a question about sort of inclusiveness and helping females to take over political positions in the country where female leader is probably to be soon to become the longest served leader of the country in the history of modern Germany. I don't think it's about special inclusiveness. It's about conditions. It's about applying same standards to all members of the society. It's not about Germany. It's not about France. It's not about the United States. So we should look at the global map and realize that we should stop pretending that there are double standards. In the United Nations, what do you have? Saudi Arabia chairing the Council on Human Rights and criticizing, for instance, Israel for violating rights of women. You know, I think there's so many things that are just, you know, that making many of the good world institutions simply a laughing stock. So we just have to understand that whether we like the country or dislike whether it's our ally or not, we have to look for universal rules that will stick to. I applaud the Chancellor Merkel not to cover her head when she visits Saudi Arabia. Bingo. That's the way you have to act because we have different rules. But the problem is that we start making, when you use word inclusiveness for the wrong purpose, ah, they have different rules. Fine. But we want to spread rules that are helping all people to get in. And if some countries persecuting women for driving, we should say what we think about it without trying to pretend that there are certain national specifics that let them do so. So we only have a few minutes left and I definitely want to close with an off-topic question, if you allow me. So I have one more question. Seeing that, as I already mentioned, we have elections in Germany here and seeing that we've talked a little bit about calling Putin's bluff. What's your call to action to this audience? Your call to action to the Republic? Look, I think in this country we are now seeing the results of Putin's years of work. And if we're talking about fake news and botnets and influence of this negative advertising on the population here in Germany. And I think it's very important that the ability of people in this audience to influence a public opinion and also to call these bluffs and to reveal the botnet operations will be vital to make sure that election will be German elections without massive interference of the third party that has a very clear agenda and a clandestine agenda and a negative agenda, which is not just German agenda. It's an agenda to destroy European Union and to undermine the democratic process to pretend that democracy is nothing but a cover up and to divert attention of people in Russia or in other non-democratic countries from their own problems. The last half hour has been such a whirlwind of a discussion up here on stage. I'm not sure if you feel the same, but somewhere between diverging political belief systems and wild speculations, it's been a very exciting ride. I would like to close with a completely different question, which is that next year we always have a theme of cooperation with a year of science. And this year it's the topic of submarine and we have a lot of very exciting installations and talks about the ocean and digital technologies. And next year it's going to be the future of work. And you are one of the few human beings who's already made the experience of being, I'd like to say Lucy, replaced by a robot in his job, which is a future that all of us really are facing here. So I would like to ask if you have any advice for all of us who have yet to experience this. To set up the record straight. I won the first match and I lost the second one. And then IBM has retired the machine. So that's why it's the... Now, but speaking seriously, so I just released my new book, Deep Thinking, where after 20 years I covered the story. It's available in English. Unfortunately, it's not yet in German. And in fact, I'm pretty optimistic about our future because I always say machines will not make us obsolete. Our complacency might. So it's about us. We still have plenty of things that only we can do. And when people say, oh, this is AI, this is... It threatens our jobs. Look, machines replacing all various forms of labor, it's a history of civilization. Machines replace farm animals, machine replace manual labor. Machines now are going after people with college degree and Twitter accounts. But it's the same process. It's nothing new. So, and I think, by the way, it's actual news because every profession must feel the pressure of being challenged. Otherwise, the humanity will cease to make it making progress. And I think that it will push us to do many great things that we abandoned, like space exploration, ocean exploration. Many things that are very risky, but machines will leave us with no choice but to fight our own complacency. A wonderful positive closing statement. Any closing remarks from your side, Claudio? I just want to say to relax because the machines have not taken over yet. The bots have not taken over yet. We still are the ones that hold our destinies to some degree. And the function of our democracy still depends on us. So do not fuck it up. And elections make the right choices. And regardless of all of these issues, there's need to be analyzed and decomposed, but do not fall into the fear of it because that's exactly the purpose that they have. Wonderful. Don't be afraid. Be born. Beautiful. Thank you both so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
 Let me introduce both speakers to you.  Gary Kasparov achieved international fame in 1985 when he became the world's youngest  chess champion at 22.  He hold this position until he retired in 2005.  The chess master is also known for his prudent critical position and as being the founder  and chairman of the pro-democracy organization United Civil Front.  Kasparov has been a figurehead in the opposition of Putin's government.  Please give him a warm welcome.  Thank you, Gary.  Claudia Granieri extensively researched and reported human rights violations in the digital  realm in many countries, including Iran, Azerbaijan, and even the USA.  He works as a senior technologist and research at Amnesty International and previously also  as a senior research fellow at Citizen Lab, University of Toronto.  He is also the co-founder of Security Without Borders and was selected by Forbes amongst  the 30 under 30 honorees for 2016.  Please give him a warm welcome.  Gary, you're going to go first for your impulse talk.  We're very excited.  If you want, you can also use the pot.  Okay.  Good afternoon.  Thank you very much.  I'm Haroldin for the introduction.  I have to say that I'm quite familiar with the topic we're discussing today because I  guess it was my bad luck that I grew up in the Soviet Union and then spent a considerable  part of my life in increasing the authoritarian Putin's Russia.  But also probably it was kind of a blessing because I know what is to live under constant  surveillance.  And now what we're seeing is that the techniques that have been part of the Soviet system and  the Putin's Russia or other non-democratic countries, these techniques now are being  spread around the world.  And we'll of course talk about attempts and sometimes very successful attempts of Putin's  regime or other non-democratic regimes to push their agenda in the free world by using  the very technology that's invented in the free world.  And before we move there, I want to make sure that we clearly understand all the consequences  of governments having access to these modern, very powerful, very intrusive technologies.  And it goes without saying that the power that is uncontrolled without checks and balances  always tries to expand.  And it's more about institutions that can protect us as individuals.  And those who think that it's fine for, say, Obama, or Land or Merkel to have these access  to massive surveillance programs and thinking that it will not be okay for, say, Trump,  Le Pen and Petri, they are part of the problem.  Because they, again, they try to separate between individuals, not recognizing that there  is the fundamental problem with the government.  And having said that, I still want to make very clear that it's not just about the collection  of data, but it's also what can be done with this data.  And sometimes we are making general assumptions.  We know that media is bias.  So some media support left-wing candidates, some media support right-wing candidates.  The bias is not censorship.  And the surveillance, when you have a court oversight, it's not persecution.  And the corporate data collection, it's not yet stasi.  And just a few slides I wanted to share with you.  One is the, it's a press freedom map.  So as you can see, green is free, yellow is not free, and red is bad.  As you can see, green is not doing well.  And if you recognize that, you know, it's visually is not that bad, because America,  Canada, and Australia are quite big.  But when you look at the absolute numbers, they are quite devastating.  There is a certain year's decline in the index of freedom of speech.  And today, as we speak, less than a certain percent of world population live in the countries  that are, that have freedom of speech.  So and why it's vital, because we all know that the freedom of speech is absolutely crucial  in checking the government and offering us protection.  That's not surprisingly that press is called sort of the fourth branch, fourth branch of  power.  And what is most amazing now, this is the, when we see this map, and especially if you  look at this progress, or it is a decline, it has been coincided with the spread of internet.  So it sounds like a paradox, because internet, you may compare it to the printing press,  which in the 15th century helped to promote new ideas, and the 16th century was vital  to, for the success of reformation.  So how come that when people have access to more information, they, you know, they, we  are all seeing that the actual freedom of speech is being declined?  And the trick is that the governments from the non-democratic countries, they realize  that they can use internet for manipulations, and they can actually create new tools that  are being presented as tools for spreading information, they actually limit people's  ability to understand what's really happening.  And moreover, moreover, many of these devices, they are allowing governments to go after  people to find those who are spreading dissenting views, and eventually to prosecute them.  And that's one of the, that's one of the big issues that I'm sure we'll discuss today  is the, is a double standard in the behavior of big corporations that are expressing their  concerns about individual privacy in the free world, but at the same time ready to comply  with draconian regulations, in countries like Russia or China or elsewhere, by protecting  their business and in danger at the same time, the lives, real lives of people who are relying  on these technologies to spread their message.  Now just a quick demonstration how non-democratic regimes, in this case Putin's regime, use  this technology to enhance their agenda.  That's the botnet.  And so what is interesting about this one, all these botnets are talking about the sudden  death of a Russian ambassador in the United Nations, Vitaly Cherkin.  The interesting thing is that when you look at the history of all these botnets, they  have been supporting Donald Trump, different, you know, under different names like Deplorable  Judy, Trump voter, etc.  So it's quite amazing that this Trump voters quote, unquote, they suddenly expressed such  a great interest in the death of Russian ambassador in the United Nations.  And it's also interesting if you follow, if you had a chance to follow the elections  in the United States, so you could see that's the, how the lines that have been first adopted  by Kremlin propaganda in Russian, they have been gradually moving into the English, English  websites, or Twitter accounts, or Facebook accounts, pretending that it's a massive support  for one candidate, while in fact you can find out that most of these accounts, they all  went back to just one master.  And it's also interesting that's how you can, you know, the ways you can identify these  accounts.  Of course, if you follow this bunch of accounts and you could see that an American who voted  for Trump supports Brexit, okay, supports Le Pen, okay, but suddenly the same accounts  supports Bashar al-Assad, or Putin's invasion in Ukraine.  Then you ask questions, how come, you know, it's, if this is an American patriot, I want  to see him or her.  And it is also important to just to remember that is, and I put it on one of my very popular  Twitter blogs.  So the point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda, it is to exhaust  your critical thinking to annihilate truth.  But you know, that's a very different way to suppress critical thinking, contrary to  what was used in the Soviet Union.  When we had no access to information by the newspaper Pravda, called Truths, what an irony,  or Channel One.  Now there's abundance of information.  It could be a flood of news, but that somehow works in the opposite direction.  Because there's only one truth and there are zillions of ways to lie.  And that's one of the classical ways how it's being used by Putin's propaganda.  That's a story about MH17, the Malaysian boy that has been shot by Russian missile in  Ukraine.  And from the very beginning it was very clear who did it, but instead of simply denying  it or just presenting one story, Kremlin came up with many stories.  And sometimes the stories could be shown on Russian television one after another.  For instance, one story told about Ukrainian missile, another one about Ukrainian jet fighter.  Then there were stories about the plane carrying dead bodies that were dropped, you know, to  blame Russia for.  But it doesn't matter how many stories they came up with, what is very important that they  created a massive block of this misinformation that simply made many people unaware where  they should look for the truth.  So I think it's now time for us to realize that it's something that we have to deal with.  This is not something that will go away because success is the best example to be imitated.  And since Putin and the likes saw quite successful implementation of their theories and then eventually  practical actions, first in Russia to demolish Russian oppositional internet, second in neighboring  countries, namely attack on Estonia in 2007, and then elsewhere.  So that's why everywhere, including this country, you all are subject for this campaign of misinformation  and I hope that we'll realize that those are the real threats that will require combined  response from the public, government and corporations to understand how we're going to deal with  the threat that might simply undermine the very foundation of our democracy.  Thank you.  Thank you very much, Gary.  Claudio, may I ask you to go next, please?  Hello, everyone.  So I don't have any slides, but I have a little speech.  So as we said, the manipulation of the public opinion clearly isn't anything new that is  generally achieved by repeating over and over a specific message in the public or in the  media to install a particular narrative that serves someone or someone else's interests.  This commonly manifests with catchphrases which, just like in commercial advertisement,  is repeated endlessly until it becomes permanent.  We're seeing, for example, with the blood in his hands rhetoric that was used against  Snowden, we're seeing it recently in the UK with the coalition of Kales which is being  used against the opposition and we've seen it countless times with Trump during the 2016  election, you know, with all locker half and so on.  So the public is fundamentally a consumer of political advertisement and social media  has become to some degree an extension of this in the sense that today's internet economic  incentives foster an environment of click baiting and instant gratification which, while  it was originally leveraged for online advertisement and money making, it has skillfully turned  out to be also perfect for catchphrase politics and particularly in a moment like this of  a resurgence of populism.  And with social media becoming increasingly a primary platform for the consumption of  information, it also clearly becomes a field where propaganda and misinformation is played  as Gary just explained.  But the internet isn't a space in vacuum, it's quite simple reflection of society with  all the goods and bads that come with it.  And with much talking on fake news which quite frankly personally I think is a term that  should be abandoned and on bots, social media bots, I think we're seeing a concerning trend  towards a sort of techno-fatalism that finds in technology a scapegoat for significant societal  issues that as a result invokes some kind of techno-solutionism which is quite just as  problematic.  For example we're seeing some movements toward the regulation of content online, for example  in Germany where it is my understanding that a law was passed that enforces fines of tens  of millions of euros to companies who fail to enforce some appropriate filtering of  content and countering of fake news.  Problem is that these are complex phenomenons that require a deep and dedicated study to  fully understand.  There is no solid indication yet of what is the measured impact of fake news and Twitter  bots and while they might very well have some and I'm sure it does, it is imperative that  before implementing for the laws and controls we have a good and documented view of what  is the nature of these phenomenons and of these problems.  So firstly these are issues that need to be analyzed also in the geographical and social  political context in which they manifest.  The impact of such phenomenons as it might be fake news and false news or junk news and  Twitter bots will differ between a repressive state with serious dangers involved in political  manifestation and say a democratic country where the effects are way less visible.  And these different might warrant different reactions and different countermeasures.  Firstly it's reassuring that to know that humans are still leading the political debates  and on the matter of false news for example Facebook recently stated that while we acknowledge  the ongoing challenge of monitoring and guarding against information operations which is their  term for false news and propaganda online, the reach of non-operations during the US  election of 2016 was statistically very small compared to the overall engagement on political  issues and I think that's a positive analysis.  In regards to the French elections instead the Oxford University published a paper that  assessed the distribution of news over social media and they ran up to the first round not  the following and found that I quote again the largest proportion of content being shared  by Twitter users interested in French politics comes from professional news organizations.  Information from political parties, government agency and other experts is also being used.  Still 19.6% of the content being shared involves other kind of political news and information  yet the largest proportion of that content is not junk news but citizen generated content.  And not only that but it also stayed for example in regards to Twitter bots that by candidate  it appears that most of the candidate have roughly the same number of highly automated  accounts generated traffic about them.  And yet these automated traffic amount to roughly 7% of the total.  All this is to say that we need to step back a little and look at it with perspective in  order to find appropriate and proportionate solutions.  A response driven by anxiety and panic is unlikely to be a constructive one and we  want to end up in a place where companies instead of courts or the public opinion are  entitled to decide what is rightful content and what isn't.  And by transition we don't want to create regimes of censorship because it is not by  filtering that we solve the bigotry and populism that manifests these issues.  Additionally we might not realize that while implementing certain restrictions or control  over some technology that might seem threatening to us we might cause an unintended impact  on the lives of others in other parts of the world.  For example I cracked down on the right to anonymity online and enforcing service providers  to police that which is something that is being discussed as a way to counteract Twitter  bots.  Wouldn't that mean for example that some human rights activists in another country will not  be able to do their work safely online just because they are not able to use pseudonyms  anymore.  That said it is important that the public is well informed and that it is not deceived.  And when we get to the point where social media will in fact be the primary source of  news and by my reading we are not quite there yet thankfully.  The real answer to these issues will have to be education and media literacy.  Technology can't be trusted.  Technology needs to be understood.  And we need to make sure that especially generations to come will be prepared to enter  in their political life with the right understanding of how technology works and how social media  and media in general work and how they can be influenced.  And to make sure that they are taught the value and equipped with ways to actively seek diverse  and accurate information.  And that is not just a response to the issue of news but it really is just a simple requirement  for nurturing open minds.  There are however some considerations that need to be made to ensure that the technology  and the internet can contribute positively rather than negatively to the betterment of  society.  Firstly we need to rethink online advertisement which besides being a toxic market that is  corrosive to the individual right of privacy there is also a key enabler of the twist dynamics  that we just spoke about and that we will continue discussing.  It is online advertisement after all the primary cause of click baiting with all the consequences  it brings.  Secondly we need to engage with the tech giants and require an opening of their systems of  algorithmic decision making.  We just cannot rely on systems that select, prioritize and provide information that operate  in ways that are clogged by state secret and even if those algorithmic decisions might  not be an immediate issue right now they very likely will be in the future.  And as we know rolling back technology which has been in place for years is extremely hard  and we rather should make sure that we build them with all the ethical and social considerations  in mind from the very beginning.  If I still have a couple of minutes I just want to make one last remark which is off from  the topic of propaganda and access to information and speak for a moment about the true hacking  of elections as we technologies understand it.  And that is that the hack of electronic voting machines as com again in the last year is  a potential threat to the integrity and legitimacy of democratic elections.  The good news is that for example the American elections did not get hacked.  The bad news is that particularly if electronic voting becomes more popular future ones might  very well be.  And I as many other friends from the hacker community have always been vehemently opposed  to the use of electronic voting machines and for good reasons.  Firstly electronic voting attempts to solve a problem that just doesn't exist.  With existing structure using paper ballots we normally get a preliminary count in a matter  of hours already.  The benefits provided by a more automated counting process are not only questionable  but they simply do not outweigh the risk that the gravity of the risks that are involved.  And secondly we just don't have a voting technology that is better than paper right now.  Electronic voting machines are normally proprietary and close systems with a stack of layers  that means both hardware and software for which the integrity simply cannot be guaranteed.  And again we would have to trust that technology.  Paper ballots on the other hand not only are extremely hard to hijack at scale but their  custody and count heavily rely on not trusting anyone by involving multiple and diverse people  overseeing the process which has been thoroughly audited for decades.  Now on top of all of this we're starting to see discussions and in some places even adoption  of online voting that to me is just complete madness for which I don't think is even necessary  to spend any words on.  It's just crazy enough by itself.  So Germany has banned electronic voting in 2009 as I understand and that is great.  Keep it that way.  This is however a problem that is real in many other places and that it's a possibility  that could creep back on us in the future at any time.  And while it might not have been presented as a concrete risk yet it is exactly in moments  like this with populism and extremism on the rise that we might see bigger incentives in  attempting to really subvert democracy and for that we shall be prepared.  Thank you.  Thank you very much Claudio.  So we have about 30 minutes left for our discussion and I definitely want to leave time for your  questions so I'm just going to ask a couple up here on stage before I ask our kind helpers  to come around and share microphones with whoever raises their hand and makes themselves  visible.  I'd like to start in a bit of a different place before we jump right into the topic  of Russia's influence on Western democracies and the influence of trolls and other technical  procedures on that.  I'd like to begin in a different place by asking you Gary, I'm sure you're familiar  with the idea of linguistic relativity.  It's the concept that the language you speak or the realm that you have your experience  from also affects the speaker's view of the world.  How do you think, assuming one of your languages is chess, how do you think that has influenced  your view of the world?  I have to admit that I never think about chess being a language.  So though I'm listening to you to a formulation of your question, I think yes, it was a way  of self-expression.  So by doing something like chess where the end result justifies your whole game and your  preparation, so it's all about winning or losing.  So it definitely shapes your character.  I think it's not just the means of expression, which is in this case in a very specific language,  but also the end result.  So it's not just the process, but the final result that will eventually prove whether  your decision making in the process was correct or not.  So I tend to view many things in the world based on my experience.  So more than 10 years ago, I came up with a book, How Life Immediate Chess, where I  tried to translate my chess experience into the general decision making formula.  I'm going to be interested to see if we can manage to tie this back at the end to see  is this have an impact perhaps on the different strategies we choose for our political activism.  Claudio, I'd like to ask you the same question.  Do the technical languages you speak influence your view of the world?  I hope not in the sense that my hope is that having a good understanding of technology  doesn't make you look at society through the lens of technology, but rather helps you looking  at technology through the lens of society.  Meaning having a way to technocentering approach to the public sphere and the world generally,  it's not a very positive thing in my opinion.  It should be the reverse where society should influence or change your views about technology  should work, if that makes any sense.  So let's jump into the topic a little bit.  I'm going to use a quote that you gave, which is the chess is a game of certain rules and  uncertain outcomes, whereas politics in Russia is a game of uncertain rules and certain outcomes.  Putin has a very strong position globally.  So I'm going to very naively ask you the question, why this strategy that seems very often if  you follow discussions and different media for extensive number of guardian articles  on this that it might not seem as the most sort of refined strategy of exercising power  and influence over the world?  Look, first of all, I always feel uncomfortable when people try to compare Putin or the dictators  to chess players.  I feel that I have to come to rescue the integrity of my game because chess is the 100% transparent  game.  So you can see the resources that are available for you or for your opponent.  You don't know the intentions of your opponent, but at least you know what they can use to  do harm to you or to protect against your threats.  Dictators don't operate in transparency.  Dictators prefer uncertainty.  So that's why I always prefer to compare Putin and alike to poker players because in poker  you can have a very weak hand, but you can win the game if you bluff, if you raise the  stakes and if you have strong nerves.  And all Putin has been doing, I wouldn't call this strategy, it's a simple tactical  game of survival.  For him to survive, he must look strong.  That's the rule, number one for every dictator.  They can make many mistakes except one because if dictator looks weak, he's being taken over  by his own cronies.  Now what can dictator do if the economy in his country is falling apart as in Russia?  Oil prices are around $50 a barrel.  It will never go back to 100.  So Russia is running huge deficit.  And at this time, Putin is making cuts on social security, on housing, on education,  on everything except military security and propaganda.  That's a war budget.  So he has made, and that's a conscious decision, confrontation with the free world, a core  element of domestic propaganda.  So if I understood you correctly in your opening remarks, the difference between Cold War  Times and the propaganda that we're seeing today is the sheer mass of noise being created.  But it's not only, it's the Cold War was a fight between two futuristic visions of  the future.  I'm not here to defend the vision from the Soviet side.  It was a fake.  It was utopia.  But at least it was an attempt to present something that will work in the future.  That's why Soviet Union made massive investments in space program.  There was a competition.  Putin's Russia is not competing with the free world.  It's Putin's propaganda is more like a cult of death.  It's all about us being surrounded by the global evil and only Vladimir Putin, a white  knight can defend Mother Russia against this global conspiracy.  So that's why Putin doesn't sell an ideology.  Putin basically is looking for any fringe groups that can help his agenda, which is  to spread the chaos, spread doubts, annihilate critical thinking.  And that's why he can go equally to far left or to far right.  Anything that attacks the European Union, NATO, the unity of democratic countries, works  for him.  That's why he's equally comfortable with Le Pen and Melon shown, with Nigel Farage  and Jeremy Corbyn, or with AFD or Delinke in Germany.  Right.  Claudio, you said already that according to your research and estimations, this is not  necessarily just a technological issue we're talking about and that automated communication  is just a fraction of the issue that we're looking at.  Myself, like reading up on the topic, one has the feeling that it's rather the issue  that we're facing in the army of people rather than an army of automated technology.  Is that a correct impression you would say?  I think it depends on the context and on the country.  I mean, the issue of propaganda online and bots and so on is not uniquely a Western issue.  You would see it reflected in many other places and it changes depending on which place you're  looking at.  Some of the research that I've read, for example, and recently they pointed out, for instance,  that while there is in some cases a level of automation, it might be circumspected to  a few accounts with a large following that have been created and nurtured over the time  to spread this message.  In other cases, you have a full-on automated kind of army of bots.  In other cases, for example, in China, there is some researchers that pointed out that  there exists what they call the 50 cent army, which is literally a large number of people  employed to spread the regime messages online and paid allegedly 50 cent per message.  That's where the name comes from.  So it really depends.  I don't know if you're both familiar with the example of Jessica Arrow.  She's a Finnish, I think, journalist who's been writing about Russian politics, but also  the phenomenon of Russian trolls.  She's one of these very well-reported, publicly vocal cases of somebody who was extremely  attacked and has then followed, at least from her, also journalistic, non-technological  perspective these attacks.  When you listen to her speaking, one has the idea that there's sort of an army of people,  not an army of automated bots, ready to lash out at every journalist in every country around  the world in their national language.  That makes also, it seemed a little bit crazy, like how big is this troll army?  No, look, it is not crazy if you look at the ratio of investment and return.  It's much cheaper than buying TV ads, and what's also very important is the huge amount  of deniability.  So you do these things, but technically you can always deny this is not us.  It's fairly effective because you can simply downgrade any debate.  Maybe it can serve for us as a measure whether the issue we raise is important, because I  know that when I put something there, so the moment I see army of trolls attacking me,  by the way, I have a good measure because I have my social both in Russian and English,  and if I say similar attacks with the same lines, I understand where it comes from.  But this is the way they decided to turn debate, an open debate, into a clown show.  So that's why they were so successful, because it's much easier to destroy.  It's much easier to debilitate the debate than make some reasonable points.  And many people, good people, they see this, ah, there's all this dirt there, and they  just walk away.  This is the whole point.  And whether it's 50 cents a person, whether it's $5 a person, it's still very cheap compared  to anything else that you can do with this money.  So you work at Amnesty Claudio.  Is there other, you know, there was said we need to all collaborate to overcome this phenomenon.  That's always so easily said, but are there programs for people like yourself, for instance,  working with people like Jessica, what are the kind of corporations between technologists,  human rights advocates, and people who are the targets of such trolling activities?  I mean, the sad reality is that journalists are threatened and mobbed all the time everywhere,  regardless of what happens online and offline.  So there obviously exist numerous organizations and network to work to support them.  Amnesty, you know, free press and limited reporters without borders.  There are a great number of them.  The kind of new reality of these threats and mobbing happening online is that now we have  to, you know, interface with others, like with the tech companies and the tech giants  and so on.  I'm asking also because you pointed out, like, at least that's how I understood there's  like a gap of research.  You know, we so often are very ready to assume this is coming from there and this is coming  from this, but in fact we have very little data to back up these assumptions.  And there are a number, there are many, many cases out there though that seem worth researching,  just, you know, having named one as an example.  Yeah, I mean, there's, this is new and old in different ways, right?  In the sense that the technology behind running these campaigns is not new, it's old.  As I was saying, it has been existing for a while as a way to leverage online advertisement  and defrauding it to some degree.  So the technology itself is old.  What is new, and I was saying, it's understudied and requires the greatest scrutiny is this  new application of it.  In the context of, you know, democratic elections, journalism, you know, threatening activists  online and so on.  And that needs more, more study to understand this new dimension and like what is the impact  of it.  So yeah, it will require, I think, quite some time before we get a good understanding of  how much of a threat it is and how better to counteract that.  I'm going to open to the audience in just a minute.  I'm just, you know, what really kind of struck me also reading your description for the session  and a couple of other things that we talked about in preparation that we're so incredibly  stuck in this old world order.  Like I am a child of the Cold War.  I grew up in West Berlin.  And it just seems sometimes really bizarre to me that it seems that none of these power  structures have changed.  And in fact, are rather even regressing.  And that it would be so, like I said, Russian is super strong position.  There are a lot of common enemies, one could say, or common challenges globally.  And instead we're sort of regressing into a strange...  Wait, wait, wait, wait.  Did I hear super strong position?  I mean, this is...  I'm really annoyed when I hear, oh, Vladimir Putin's so strong.  Is he more dangerous than Joseph Stalin in 1948?  I mean, you grew up in West Berlin.  So when Americans and Brits opposed Stalin take over, attempt to take over in Berlin  in 1948, are you seriously telling me now that Vladimir Putin is so dangerous?  Putin's Russia is a pale shadow of Soviet Union under Stalin or his successors.  It's what we have to make.  But yet we're here on stage discussing his influence over all our western democracies.  No, no, no, no, no, no.  Look, exactly because there's lack of political will here.  Because you don't have people who are ready to take stand against him.  If you compare 1948 or 1962 or even 1979, today the free world has the overwhelming military  and economic advantage over the unfree world.  So just look, who are the Putin's allies?  He could Stalin and they controlled half of Europe.  They had allies across the world.  Who are Putin's allies today?  He's Bullah Hamas Iran Bashar al-Assad.  Who shows the whole rest of the world just falling for an incredible terrain?  Because it's called complacency.  Don't try to cover your indecisiveness, complacency.  Very often cover this by so-called strength of Vladimir Putin.  He's doing it out of desperation.  He doesn't have the same military power or the same network of people.  What he has, he has a lot of money and he has new weapons.  He knows how to weaponize refugees, how to weaponize press, but that's not the same  threat.  Because that was in 1948 or 1962 or 1979.  And yet, why is there this confrontational approach then?  Why is there not a seek for more cooperation?  Why is Russia not, if it's actually in a week as a position as you suggest reaching out  to other powers and creating new allies, but really alienating the rest of the world?  Because I just said 10 minutes ago, Vladimir Putin doesn't care about strength or weakness  of Russia.  He wants to stay in power.  He has so much blood on his hands, so much corruption.  He has nowhere to go.  He will stay there until he's being kicked out.  And he knows the only way to stay in power is to step up confrontation.  That's why he committed crimes in Ukraine.  That's why Russian troops committing genocide in Syria.  That's why he will go anywhere to make sure that his position in Russia, in the Russian  people is not compromised.  If this is the house of cards that Putin is living in, what will take it to blow it down?  To show that he is weak, to call his bluff, to make him look like a loser.  He lost in France, good news.  He lost in Holland.  I hope he will lose in Germany.  He's losing now in the United States.  That definitely weakens his position in Russia.  Okay.  I'm going to add one more question before opening to the audience, because this is actually  very dear to my heart.  If you say he lost in France, I think that the suggestion of the complete undermining  of our democracies is a danger in itself.  We live in a day and age where people are alienated from their states and from politics,  where people are disengaged and people do not care, where the majority people do not  go to vote.  If we keep suggesting this idea of this deep state, this intangible powers that we cannot  influence and control as citizens, aren't we moving?  Are you twisting my words?  No, I'm asking you a question.  No, it's not a deep state.  Vladimir Putin openly supported Marie Le Pen.  There's official loan, quote, unquote, of 9 million euros, plus I'm sure millions of  euros donated to him.  But you said Putin lost in France.  That's not a deep state.  Yes.  So, he openly supported Putin's actions in Ukraine.  Melon Sean has been arguing that the borders in Europe can be revised.  So three out of four leading candidates were basically pro-Putin.  And one-one.  So I even said that Putin bet on three cards out of four.  So the point that I was making is that in your statements and also in some of the statements  that I have read, the suggestion of this outer influence on our Western democracies today,  I find is a very critical one because in the end, it is still the populace of these countries  making the decisions and voting.  And by giving them the idea that they're being tricked and fooled and not in control,  aren't you encouraging this idea that people are actually not the ones in power?  Aren't we feeding into what Putin is doing in a way through that as well?  No, actually, we're bringing them in.  So what's happened in Holland one year ago when they voted in the referendum for Ukraine  that has been initiated by Hurt Wilders, I'm sure, with a whisper from Moscow, 32 percent  of Dutch voters showed up and 62 percent supported Wilders.  At the Dutch elections, 81 percent showed up, turned out, and he got less than 14 percent.  So we saw the results.  Putin was successful in Brexit.  Putin was successful in Italian referendum in some elections in Europe and, of course,  in the United States.  Now, people realize the danger.  People realize how fake news, you may call it negative advertising, is working in his  favor, and they are more actively engaged.  I think it's good news that we see more active engagement of people.  We see now America is awakening.  People are paying attention to the independent judiciary, to the separation of power.  American press now is just really going up in administration and creates a good example  for the rest of the world.  Hmm.  OK, let's see what you guys have to say to this before we continue the debate up here.  I see a lot of hands going up, so let's have the first intervention come from, yep, you.  Can we have at least one or two more people going around with microphones in the audience,  because it's such a big room, please.  Please go ahead.  Which number?  B1.  B1.  Can we have the microphone?  B1, switch on, please.  OK, we're bringing you a new microphone.  Sorry for the delay.  The mic was hacked.  Hello.  Now I have a question to Mr. Kasparov.  First one is, do you think that Putin will try to influence the German election this year,  and how can we as a society prepare?  And the second question is, do you expect any surprises for next year's presidential elections  in Russia?  Thank you.  Should I answer the question?  Yes, please.  Do I think it's raining now?  It's just, it's like asking public opinion, do you think today is Monday or Tuesday?  So this is, there's certain facts.  Putin has been doing it for years, and they have been trying desperately to merge Russian  voting block here, because there are many Russian speakers who will vote in general elections  with organizations like Pegida and AFD.  Those are the facts.  And you can look at Russian propaganda in Russia, or you can actually look at the Russian  control media in Germany, what they have been doing.  Of course he is aiming at Angela Merkel, because he knows that she's instrumental in keeping  sanctions.  I very often call her the last man standing.  So removing Merkel is a number one priority, and Putin is not even hiding this.  That's what Russian propaganda has been doing.  Now as for elections in Russia, I think I overheard you.  There are no elections in Russia.  There's a day in the calendar, so that's when people technically can go and prove what  the criminal already knows, because of course results of the elections will be announced.  The criminal already said they are heading for so-called 70-74 million.  70% turnout, 70% support for Putin.  Lady over there please.  Thank you.  I'll answer in English, yes.  My question is, we have seen young Russians coming out after Navalny was publishing the  site about corruption cases around Mr Medvedev.  Is there a digital educated generation of young Russians willing to hack Russian state  sites as a form of opposition?  Thank you very much for this question, because that also adds to my argument about so-called  strengths of Putin regime.  What we saw on March 26, just a few weeks ago, massive demonstrations.  And when I said massive, it was really massive, because some people here could say, oh, we  saw 30,000 people in Moscow.  30,000 people in Moscow, it's more than 5 million here, because they go to the streets  knowing that they can be arrested, beaten, and just something terrible can happen to  them.  This is not a demonstration that police protects you, it's where police goes against you.  And the fact is that most of these people, about 100,000 across Russia, or young people,  tells you that we have a new generation from the millennials that are not affected by Kremlin  propaganda, by not channel one, channel two, channel three, but they are following Alexei  Navalny and other leaders on the Internet, and it gives us hope that they realize that  the Putin system offers no future.  And that means that regime is inherently weak, that's what we knew already, and they are  running out of funds, running out of money, because Putin has to make sure that his oligarchs  cronies are happy, so that's why he always takes money from the Treasury and distributes  among them.  So for me, it's all a matter of Putin still looking strong.  The moment he will look like a loser, I'm sure many things will happen in Russia, because  no matter how strong dictator looks like today, it's all of a sudden.  I always say there are bad news and good news.  Bad news, I don't know when and how Putin leaves the office.  The good news he also doesn't know.  Over the FDs.  Hello.  Thank you for your presentation, everyone.  I had a question about diversity and inclusiveness.  I guess on the two panels, Claudio and Jeldin, I would be interested to hear more about how  we can create inclusive communities to be able to push back stronger against some of  the top level states, whether it's APTs or other actors.  I'm sorry, Kasparov.  I'd rather you had been quoted saying women by their nature are not exceptional chess  players.  I think this trickled down into your view of geopolitics and geostrategic relations.  If you thought that actually part of the solution is not just to push back against strongmen  in authoritarian states, but also to be able to have more women and a more diverse inclusiveness  into the general democratic system and to be able to maybe start fielding female candidates  instead of male candidates.  I can't understand.  Did I understand the question?  I think we're on moving toward a more positive outlook.  I'm just going to try to repeat what you said, Matt, and you can jump up if I'm doing anything  wrong.  The question to us on this side of the panel was how do we create more inclusive and diverse  communities?  How do we work together to strengthen democratic powers to step up against what we're speaking  here on stage?  I think the question directed to you is, should we focus all of your energy toward this one  target?  Should we not try to see how we need to have other strategies which is to build up new  leaders, especially female leaders, to take a place at the ones we're criticizing today?  You're not good.  You first, please.  The question was again, how do we create communities?  Give diverse step toward building up a power that can step up towards what we're seeing  today?  That's how I understood it.  That's a million-dollar question, man.  I don't think I have a really good answer to that in the sense that creating effective,  inclusive, and diverse communities is already a problem in and of itself.  But alone then make it so good enough to stand against powers and defend democracy.  Generally then, I would abstract it a little and say, what I think is important is that  there is personally an effort in abandoning some kind of apathy towards these issues and  starts dedicating communities as exists already all around the world in analyzing these problems  that we're talking about besides just amplifying them without reason.  We need to analyze these issues by aggregating technologies with journalists and artists  and so on in communities like this to discuss these issues and decompose them in a way that  we can then understand them.  After we've done that, then we can devise ways to make so that these communities can  hold these powers to account.  But other than that, I'm not sure of that million-dollar answer, man.  I think I would just like to add that I think we need to stop perpetuating the idea that  we are all powerless victims in the societies that we live in and give people the feeling  that they can regain agency to influence the world they live in rather than build up frustration  and fear and lash out at others.  I'm a bit puzzled to receive a question about sort of inclusiveness and helping females  to take over political positions in the country where female leader is probably to be soon  to become the longest served leader of the country in the history of modern Germany.  I don't think it's about special inclusiveness.  It's about conditions.  It's about applying same standards to all members of the society.  It's not about Germany.  It's not about France.  It's not about the United States.  So we should look at the global map and realize that we should stop pretending that there  are double standards.  In the United Nations, what do you have?  Saudi Arabia chairing the Council on Human Rights and criticizing, for instance, Israel  for violating rights of women.  You know, I think there's so many things that are just, you know, that making many of the  good world institutions simply a laughing stock.  So we just have to understand that whether we like the country or dislike whether it's  our ally or not, we have to look for universal rules that will stick to.  I applaud the Chancellor Merkel not to cover her head when she visits Saudi Arabia.  Bingo.  That's the way you have to act because we have different rules.  But the problem is that we start making, when you use word inclusiveness for the wrong purpose,  ah, they have different rules.  Fine.  But we want to spread rules that are helping all people to get in.  And if some countries persecuting women for driving, we should say what we think about  it without trying to pretend that there are certain national specifics that let them do  so.  So we only have a few minutes left and I definitely want to close with an off-topic question,  if you allow me.  So I have one more question.  Seeing that, as I already mentioned, we have elections in Germany here and seeing that we've  talked a little bit about calling Putin's bluff.  What's your call to action to this audience?  Your call to action to the Republic?  Look, I think in this country we are now seeing the results of Putin's years of work.  And if we're talking about fake news and botnets and influence of this negative advertising  on the population here in Germany.  And I think it's very important that the ability of people in this audience to influence  a public opinion and also to call these bluffs and to reveal the botnet operations will be  vital to make sure that election will be German elections without massive interference of  the third party that has a very clear agenda and a clandestine agenda and a negative agenda,  which is not just German agenda.  It's an agenda to destroy European Union and to undermine the democratic process to pretend  that democracy is nothing but a cover up and to divert attention of people in Russia or  in other non-democratic countries from their own problems.  The last half hour has been such a whirlwind of a discussion up here on stage.  I'm not sure if you feel the same, but somewhere between diverging political belief systems  and wild speculations, it's been a very exciting ride.  I would like to close with a completely different question, which is that next year we always  have a theme of cooperation with a year of science.  And this year it's the topic of submarine and we have a lot of very exciting installations  and talks about the ocean and digital technologies.  And next year it's going to be the future of work.  And you are one of the few human beings who's already made the experience of being, I'd  like to say Lucy, replaced by a robot in his job, which is a future that all of us really  are facing here.  So I would like to ask if you have any advice for all of us who have yet to experience this.  To set up the record straight.  I won the first match and I lost the second one.  And then IBM has retired the machine.  So that's why it's the...  Now, but speaking seriously, so I just released my new book, Deep Thinking, where after 20  years I covered the story.  It's available in English.  Unfortunately, it's not yet in German.  And in fact, I'm pretty optimistic about our future because I always say machines will  not make us obsolete.  Our complacency might.  So it's about us.  We still have plenty of things that only we can do.  And when people say, oh, this is AI, this is...  It threatens our jobs.  Look, machines replacing all various forms of labor, it's a history of civilization.  Machines replace farm animals, machine replace manual labor.  Machines now are going after people with college degree and Twitter accounts.  But it's the same process.  It's nothing new.  So, and I think, by the way, it's actual news because every profession must feel the  pressure of being challenged.  Otherwise, the humanity will cease to make it making progress.  And I think that it will push us to do many great things that we abandoned, like space  exploration, ocean exploration.  Many things that are very risky, but machines will leave us with no choice but to fight  our own complacency.  A wonderful positive closing statement.  Any closing remarks from your side, Claudio?  I just want to say to relax because the machines have not taken over yet.  The bots have not taken over yet.  We still are the ones that hold our destinies to some degree.  And the function of our democracy still depends on us.  So do not fuck it up.  And elections make the right choices.  And regardless of all of these issues, there's need to be analyzed and decomposed, but do  not fall into the fear of it because that's exactly the purpose that they have.  Wonderful.  Don't be afraid.  Be born.  Beautiful.  Thank you both so much.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.
re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_0_383.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_384_1127.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_1128_6059.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_6060_6299.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_6300_11111.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_11112_11627.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_11628_13811.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_13812_14927.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_14928_15719.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_15720_20699.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_20700_25943.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_25944_29291.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_29292_34295.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_34296_35951.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_35952_36491.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_36492_36779.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_36780_36995.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_36996_40679.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_40680_41135.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_41136_42575.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_42576_44903.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_44904_45095.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_45096_46163.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_46164_48755.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_48756_48983.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_48984_49727.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_49728_50507.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_50508_53207.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_53208_53987.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_53988_54923.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_54924_55751.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_55752_56255.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_56256_56567.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_56568_57767.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_57768_58415.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_58416_59951.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_59952_60059.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_60060_60311.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_60312_60359.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_60360_62051.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_62052_65039.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_65040_71639.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_71640_77639.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_77640_78215.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_78216_80411.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_80412_80531.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_80532_80951.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_80952_82883.png re_publica_2017_-_Hacking_Democracy__Power_and_Propaganda_in_the_Digital_Age_OjejygTTZ8c_82884_83028.png