Javier Zarzalejos, PP MEP: "The EU has generated many antibodies against Russian disinformation"

To situate people a bit, how does the EU define disinformation? It is a strategy that consists of the dissemination of information or content that is deliberately false for a disruptive objective, which can be political, cultural or social.. It is not a falsehood that is launched, but rather a thought strategy, based on false or manipulated elements to give rise to a certain reaction in favor of whoever carries out that strategy.

Is misinformation also war? Yes, in fact the idea of hybrid warfare has already been established, in which the actions of the parties in military terms are complemented by a very powerful disinformation strategy that accompanies and is present throughout the war strategy.. We saw it in the case of Ukraine: its invasion by Russia was preceded by the definition of the country as a “Nazi state” and at this moment Putin's disinformation plan consists of saying that the problem is not Ukraine, but the West. and NATO. This today is a central element.

In wars there has always been propaganda Yes, but in terms of disinformation what is really new is the power and the enormous power that technological vehicles have for it.

In this scenario, what role does the EU play? The EU is a target of disinformation and its destabilization is one of Russia's essential goals at the moment, and we have seen it. Not only because of Moscow's strategies in all the problematic scenarios of the Union (Brexit, referendum in Scotland, procés), but also because of a permanent Russian strategy trying to undermine citizens' confidence in democracy, presenting the West as a decadent society. Therefore, there are several levels of misinformation: conditioning an electoral process, a political event, etc.. Wherever Moscow has seen that there is a fire in Europe, Putin has appeared with the gasoline can.

What do you think has been the EU's greatest progress so far in the fight against disinformation? The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been the final milestone that has given the Union an awareness that disinformation must be taken seriously. And I think it has had good effects; I think that Europe is quite immune to Putin's disinformation and that is why what Putin generates produces very little effect or even the opposite effect.. If Finland and Sweden had been successful they would not have approached NATO, for example. And then it has become clear that we are not only talking about disinformation through a group of hackers or bots that spread hoaxes, but that it is protected by an influence that Russia has achieved through the recruitment of personalities, financing of organizations, foundations or even in some cases of political parties. It's the so-called Gazprom lobby. But I believe that we have generated many antibodies against all of this.

Do misinformation and artificial intelligence necessarily go hand in hand? It doesn't have to. AI is an element that will promote and promote disinformation, but it is an issue that has many nuances and it is important not to mix concepts. You can recreate a surgical operation that serves and helps doctors or you can create an artificial reality but indistinguishable from reality. If we combine the possibilities that AI has in terms of natural language, the famous ChatGPT, plus the ability of AI to create images, situations or scenarios, we see that it is a truly brutal weapon of disinformation and there we can have a very serious problem.

Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton once told a senior Google official that the internet “can't be the Wild West”, is it? It is the Wild West, but the Wild West was not only the lack of law, but also the colonization of new spaces, the incorporation of new people to the productive activity or is it the railway. The Internet is not a lawless environment, it will be increasingly regulated, but it must be regulated effectively, and I believe that large companies will increasingly be held accountable for the proliferation of content that is illegal, destabilizing. Here the large entities are hardly going to be able to maintain the idea that they are neutral platforms, without editorial control; that is no longer true. We are moving towards what we call regulated self-regulation.

Has enough been done already? The digital markets law and the digital services law have allowed significant progress, but they are transversal regulations that must also have sectoral development. A lot of progress has been made and the big companies know that they already have very specific obligations and duties and that there are limits and sanctions.. The EU has shown that its pulse does not tremble. Progress has been made without the need to stifle business or technological innovation. The dilemma cannot be either innovation or regulation.

Of what remains for the EU to do in this regard, what is the most important? There is beginning to be a lot of legislation in some areas such as the protection of children and youth, we are legislating on AI and data or on the prevention of terrorist content. Basically we are talking about the need to purify illegal content. I think there is a lot of legislation in some areas but it does not have a legal density, rather it expresses appeals for cooperation and great declarations about protection, but we need legislation that is much more focused on procedures, obligations of companies and rights of citizens, and that this legislation does not restrict. The EU is doing this well: fewer declarations and more rules to clean up the web.