One of the most destructive effects of the information war is the creation of a symmetry of suspicion. If anyone can manipulate since “everyone has a business”, then each information becomes possibly false and worth manipulating. fact ceases to be universal, it ceases to be an axiom, it ceases to be a cognitive category. fact becomes an opinion – each has its own.
The top success of the information war – although paradoxically the least perceived – is not convincing the audience to a peculiar narrative. This is much more dangerous: bringing about a situation where we start to think that trust becomes a risk. erstwhile any information appears suspicious and any correction or effort to explain it – biased, public debate ceases to service and only worsens social relations. In specified an environment conflicts form and drive themselves, and everyone loses. Even those who did not participate in the debate.
Trust is the foundation of any cooperation. We usually talk about it in the context of close relationships – friendship, work together, family, marriage. It seldom goes to the headlines. Yet no community functions without it. It is the anticipation of receiving information from another individual without having to verify all word that allows us to build deeper relationships. Trust allows us to presume the good will of the talker – a condition for a healthy debate. erstwhile trust is lacking, communication turns into a string of suspicions, a search for the second bottom. Public space becomes a field of constant defense.
The information war strikes this very foundation. Crushing it in a way that threatens to collapse the full social structure. He does this not with 1 spectacular lie, but by systematically weakening the belief that the individual on the another side of the screen, microphone or table speaks in good faith.
Trust doesn't abruptly fall apart. As long as we trust each another along with our interlocutors, we seldom have reason to lose that trust. Assuming the goodwill of both sides, the disintegration of trust comes from the outside. It starts with insignificant cracks: conflicting reports; rumors; emotional headlines; sensational and seldom anything supported by “revelations”, which, even if erstwhile proved excessive or false, are not usually straightened out later.
Each specified experience leaves a mark on each side of the discussion. The recipient learns caution, then skepticism, and at the end of suspicion and hostility to the sender. The broadcaster enters the defensive, complicating his communication, which frequently has the other effect – since he is beginning to "talk complicated", he most likely has something to hide. The information war is not about everyone trusting a lie or a lie. It achieves its first success at a time erstwhile less and less people believe in anything and trust small to whom; especially in common and organization sources.
One of the most destructive effects of the information war is the creation of a symmetry of suspicion. If anyone can manipulate since “everyone has a business”, then each information becomes possibly false and worth manipulating. fact ceases to be universal, it ceases to be an axiom, it ceases to be a cognitive category. fact becomes an opinion – each has its own.
In specified a planet no longer matters what can be proved, or what is better documented, but what fits the earlier beliefs and preferences of the "bubble" recipient. If fresh information does not agree with what the recipient wants to believe, it will be rejected by him. The information war is effective erstwhile the difference between cognition and facts and communicative and opinions ceases to substance and communication must comply with what the end user wants to read. This is why we are proceeding more and more: "all media lie"; "everyone has something to hide" or "every politician steals." It is no longer about whether a peculiar writer lied or whether a peculiar politician is corrupt. The point is, suspicion has become the default setting. Innocence should be proven. religion to work out. But at the same time – all proof can be fabricated, and all credibility can appear.
When trust in conventional and organization sources, i.e. media, experts, institutions and authorities disappears, people search support for their opinions in another places. If you can't trust others, where is the best place to look for information, and where is the safest place to feel? "Ours." uncovering yourself in an identity – national, ideological, cultural, tribal or class – is always the simplest, due to the fact that according to our instincts: “we versus they’.
“I believe my” becomes the basic rule of orientation in information chaos. “They” want to trick me and manipulate me, and “my” want the best for me and as the only ones telling me the truth. The problem mentioned above is that specified logic does not filter information for truth, but only for loyalty. Information wars reenforce this mechanism, due to the fact that through strong divisions there may be communicative conflicts that are the basis for them. Grandma reading “Gazeta Wyborcza” and her cousin from TikToka live in different realities. They meet at household dinners, where – rather wisely – they learned to avoid politics. This is not trust in the community. It's a fragile truce.
When we operate in conditions of erosion of trust, dialog and healthy communication are no longer possible. If the another side wants to manipulate us, or if we presume that the another side is by definition suspicious and will spread our statements into syllables, all conversation turns into competition. all argument becomes a sign of belonging, and all subsequent conviction expressed only strengthens the speaker's conviction that there is no point in further discussion.
Wars feed on lost lives. Information wars feed on lost trust. Not only do they usage polarization, they actively deepen it. Polarized society is little capable of jointly assessing facts and creating any kind of collective resilience. Any effort to nuance can be perceived as treason, any uncertainty as weakness, and any effort to correct as ‘regressing’—every general will say, however, that the front line cannot be reversed.
The consequence of this dynamics is the complete paralysis of public debate, even in the most important, seemingly universal issues. alternatively of a dispute over solutions to hard situations, we have a dispute over intentions and alternatively of discussing facts, fighting for narratives. Even if individual proposes to fix a holed bridge, there will be a group convinced that it is only about "pumping pockets". In specified an environment it is increasingly hard to make collective decisions, due to the fact that there is no minimum consensus on describing reality. If we cannot agree on the basis of the problem, how can we agree on a solution or even whether it is simply a problem worth resolving? The information war does not gotta block the debate directly; it is adequate that no 1 believes in its meaning anymore.
In modern democratic societies there is simply a common information space, even if it is filled with contention; since healthy disputes are the basis of democracy and make it stronger. As this space breaks down, democratic procedures begin to work in vacuum. Elections, public consultation, parliamentary debates, the position of judges or the validity of nominations – these are all things that lose legitimacy in the eyes of any citizens who start to see all activities as part of manipulation. The information war does not only hit circumstantial narratives. By not trusting our callers, we besides halt believing the rules of the game.
Rebuilding trust is difficult. Much more hard than its failure and virtually impossible without a massive stimulus that will rip the society affected by its failure from the trance. Reconstruction takes time, consequences and reliable institutions – and the second frequently lacks precisely where the information war was the most intense and made the top destruction.
In addition, the recipients erstwhile learned suspicions seldom return to the earlier level of openness. How do they know that the individual on the another side is truly their friend – possibly he's just trying to win their favour so that it's easier to trick us again? Even reliable information is filtered by the experience of erstwhile disappointments. This makes the effects of information wars persist long after the immediate impulse of the conflict disappear.
If trust is the first victim of an information war, then rebuilding it should become a priority. But let's not fool ourselves – it will not be a return to erstwhile innocence. The planet in which we could automatically trust the media, experts and institutions has gone unreturned. And possibly right. The question isn't how to regain blind trust. The question is: how do you learn to function in a planet where trust must be built all day, verified and sustained? How can we make mechanisms that will let us to work together even if we do not full trust each other?
Untrusted societies are weaker and far more susceptible to manipulation. They are besides little likely to act together. In the planet of permanent information conflicts, trust is not a luxury – it is simply a condition for survival. And no 1 is safe adequate to afford to ignore that fact. Even those who think they won the information war.
