How We Combat Disinformation
Where is the line between dangerous misinformation and freedom of speech? Working in the field of disinformation is a particular challenge.
Disinformation—the term repeatedly makes headlines in newspapers, shapes the topics of discussion at panel discussions, and influences the agendas of national and international politics. But what does disinformation actually mean? Even though it remains difficult to describe the phenomenon precisely and exhaustively, several defining characteristics can be identified.
What does disinformation look like, and why is it so dangerous?
What does disinformation look like, and why is it so dangerous?
Disinformation has many faces and is rarely recognizable as such, since it can sometimes appear deceptively real and look like legitimate news. The spectrum across which it can operate is broad, ranging from completely fabricated content to the deliberate misrepresentation of existing content and the intentional omission of information.
Disinformation has long since ceased to be limited to text. Thanks to technological advances, visual and audiovisual content can be used more and more effectively to deliberately spread false or misleading information. But purchased likes, the mass use of fake accounts, and unlabeled political advertising are also sometimes referred to as disinformation, as they can distort the actual relevance or reach of a post or a topic.
An important task now is to learn to recognize and distinguish the various facets of disinformation. Only then can this problem be adequately addressed.
EU Definition of Disinformation
“Disinformation” refers to information that is demonstrably false or misleading, which is designed, presented, and disseminated with the aim of economic gain or the intentional deception of the public, and which may cause public harm. 2018 Action Plan Against Disinformation
Inadvertent errors in reporting, satire, and parodies—as well as clearly labeled partisan news or commentary—are therefore explicitly excluded from the definition. Rather, the dissemination of disinformation is generally intended to exacerbate social tensions or influence political and economic processes. This often occurs through the use of modern technologies, such as bot networks or deepfakes.
Our Campaign Against Disinformation - Source: Trust Me
Rarely has uncertainty been as high as it was before the 2025 federal election: Targeted disinformation on social media and sabotage campaigns by foreign intelligence services are intended to influence public opinion—and thus voting decisions—in our country. That is why we have launched an awareness campaign against disinformation in digital media, aimed particularly at younger voters. In addition to providing information, the campaign aims to raise users’ awareness of the question of who actually benefits from the targeted spread of false information.
Cui bono? Who benefits from disinformation?
It is often not easy to determine the truthfulness of a piece of information. But who actually benefits from disinformation? In the discussion surrounding disinformation, the central question “Cui bono?”—“Who benefits?”—often takes a back seat. Yet this is precisely the crucial question when it comes to the spread of conspiracy theories and biased misinformation. The campaign aims to encourage people to think more about the background and intentions behind the deliberate spread of false information.
Why is disinformation an issue in media policy?
Disinformation abuses and exploits the very thing we seek to protect: freedom of speech. That is what makes regulating it so challenging.
Disinformation threatens democracy.
In a democracy, where everyone can use their vote to help shape the outcome of elections—and thus the political and social reality in their country—it is essential that information be freely accessible and factually accurate. The media play a vital role in this regard.
Public discourse takes place in the media, which should reflect the diverse opinions and prevailing sentiments of the population. However, the spread of disinformation systematically undermines this crucial element of any democracy. Its potential to destabilize democracy and democratic structures, stoke fears, and exacerbate uncertainties makes disinformation a central issue for domestic, foreign, and economic policy.
Media policy, too, must address this phenomenon.
Media regulation in Germany is committed to freedom of expression.
Our most important task is to enable free expression in the media and the free formation of public opinion through the media. However, this is not possible when public discourse is distorted by the deliberate spread of misinformation. A media policy solution is therefore needed here.
The particular challenge in dealing with disinformation lies in the fact that it exploits the very core of a democratic media order—the right to free speech—while simultaneously destroying it. Preserving this right while protecting it from criminal abuse is a particularly important task, especially in light of technological developments.
What We're Already Doing Today and What Still Needs to Be Done - A Phased Approach
Duty of Care—When It Matters Most
How the duties of media regulation under §19 MStV should not be understood.
The state media regulatory authorities are neither the “truth police” nor the guardians of good taste. It is possible to deceive with the truth, and at the same time, not every untruth constitutes a conscious and deliberate deception. Whether one personally likes it or not is irrelevant to the assessment of the facts. The basis for evaluation lies not in what is published, but in how it is published.
How We Proceed
Our legal mandate is to monitor whether providers that disseminate news and political information via telemedia in a journalistic and editorial format are practicing journalism appropriately. The journalistic and editorial duties of care serve as an objective framework against which the craft of producing information and news can be assessed in a content-neutral manner. They must apply in particular to providers who, by virtue of their role in public discourse, enjoy special credibility. This applies, for example, to government agencies and government-funded entities, as well as accounts with a wide reach. If a violation is identified during the review of a service, the state media authorities are authorized, pursuant to Section 109(1) in conjunction with Section 19(1) and (2) of the Media State Treaty (MStV), to take measures against the service. These include, among other things, issuing a formal objection and imposing a ban. This is, of course, always preceded by a formal hearing procedure. At this stage, the provider has the opportunity to appeal the measures imposed against them. Ultimately, the courts decide on the admissibility of the measures.
Ban on Manipulative Dissemination Techniques
While disinformation is not a new phenomenon in itself, it has fundamentally changed in terms of both quality and quantity, at the latest with the advent of the Internet. To combat disinformation online even more effectively, a ban on manipulative dissemination techniques is needed. This includes, for example, the mass, coordinated use of bots and fake accounts to deliberately deceive the public, or techniques involving the falsification of content, which significantly jeopardize the free formation of opinion. This is because verifying journalistic standards of care alone is not sufficient to definitively solve the problem of disinformation. The media organizations advocate for a tiered regulatory approach consisting of transparency requirements, standards of care, and a ban on manipulative dissemination techniques.