On Tuesday, 25 February 2025, ARTICLE 19 Europe and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH hosted a discussion at RightsCon 2025 in Taipei, bringing together key experts on information integrity and media resilience from across Europe. The panel featured Lutz Guellner (Head of the European Economic and Trade Office in Taiwan), Gevorg Hayrapetyan (CyberHub, dpHUB: Data Protection and Privacy, Armenia), Raša Nedeljkov (Center for Research, Transparency and Accountability), and Liliana Vițu (Audiovisual Council, Moldova). The discussion was facilitated by Joanna Szymańska (ARTICLE 19 Europe) and Franziska Jakobs (GIZ).
The discussion focused on the complex challenges public watchdogs and the media face in an environment where both online and offline spheres are saturated with disinformation. Panellists highlighted the urgent need to protect fair and pluralistic public debate while countering manipulative narratives that distort reality and fuel hostility and polarisation – all while striking a balance between these two priorities.
Panellists provided an overview of the main threats to information integrity and the sources of disinformation that ultimately target democratic values and undermine investigations into abuses of power, as well as efforts to expose Russian propaganda. The key case studies examined the complexity of the information landscape in Armenia, Moldova, and Serbia, while also providing regional context from the European Union’s perspective.
Joint effort of civil society and legal experts
Armenian lawyer Gevorg Hayrapetyan emphasised that safeguarding information integrity requires a collaborative, multistakeholder approach built on trust, transparency, and legal safeguards. He highlighted Armenia’s proactive efforts in countering disinformation, including the Media Ethics Observatory – a self-regulatory body with over 80 member media organisations that monitor and document disinformation – and the country’s national disinformation strategy, which was developed with strong civil society involvement.
Hayrapetyan further highlighted the importance of soft tools, such as awareness campaigns and civil society engagement, to build resilience against disinformation. He also underscored the need for a legal harmonisation project to update legislation in line with technological advancements while safeguarding human rights. He also advocated for a large-scale digital resilience program that includes mandatory digital literacy education in schools, targeted training for journalists and policymakers, and robust cross-sector collaboration between governments, civil society, and technology companies.
Russia’s disinformation in Moldova
In Moldova, the main threat of interference in the country’s information and political landscape, including elections, comes from Russia through multi-pronged and carefully tailored online propaganda campaigns. Liliana Vițu highlighted how Russia allocates significant funds to produce fake and manipulative content aimed at discrediting European Union integration while promoting the Russian path as the preferred course for Moldova’s development and prosperity. She provided several examples, illustrating how disinformation is not only spread through traditional propaganda ‘news’ channels but also embedded in entertainment programmes, talk shows, and movies – including instances where characters falsely claim that Crimea’s capital is Moscow.
This disinformation campaign has had a direct impact on public perception, as reflected in the European referendum results, which passed by a very narrow margin. Vițu emphasised that Russia’s ongoing influence operations must be taken with utmost seriousness and require robust countermeasures. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Moldova responded by introducing a partial ban on Russian TV programs, including talk shows and entertainment programs that disseminate disinformation, promote war propaganda, and endorse discriminatory narratives.
As head of Moldova’s Audiovisual Council, Vițu detailed the country’s efforts to combat Russian disinformation. Moldova adopted a definition of disinformation based on the Lithuanian model, incorporating indicators to assess intent, falsehood, and potential harm to national security. Additionally, the country developed hate speech provisions that are in the primary law to prevent arbitrary enforcement and engaged with online platforms to enhance strategic communication efforts.
Countering false narratives from politicians in Serbia
While in Moldova the main threat comes from an external actor, in Serbia and broader in Western Balkans, the biggest challenge lies in the country’s politicians, who use manipulative tactics, smears, and false narratives to serve their political interests – most often to conceal their abuses while in office. Raša Nedeljkov, who has an extensive experience in fact-checking, indicated that disinformation creates a ‘parallel reality’, making it harder for societies to address real challenges. He also emphasised that information integrity is a precondition for democracy, as elections, the rule of law, and human rights protection cannot function in a disinformation-heavy environment.
Nedeljkov pointed out that disinformation in the Western Balkans is not only an online threat but also a key feature of pro-government mass media, including TV programs. A major issue, he noted, is that private companies advertise their products on these channels, indirectly endorsing the content – including false narratives – that air alongside their commercials. Nedeljkov has been part of fact-checking initiatives and collaboration with German media that led to successful campaigns persuading advertisers to withdraw funding from disinformation-spreading outlets.
Cross-border cooperation to address manipulative tactics
Lutz Guellner provided a bird’s-eye view, drawing on his experience working for the European Union, and emphasised the need for a collective effort to counter disinformation, as the days of protecting the information landscape solely at the national level are long gone. In an era of globalisation – where countries are deeply interconnected and the online sphere has no national boundaries – our approach must be rooted in comprehensive, cross-border cooperation.
Guellner stressed that modern authoritarian regimes thrive not on blatant lies, but on manipulated narratives. That’s why he urged against simplistic ‘True vs. False’ dichotomies. According to Guellner, the danger lies in the fact that propaganda often contains a grain of truth, making the false narratives seem plausible and therefore, more difficult to debunk outright. The focus should therefore be on manipulative tactics such as fake websites and undue content amplification.
To effectively address disinformation, Guellner advocated for a ‘whole-of-government’ and ‘whole-of-society’ approach, integrating security, education, and digital policies to build resilience against disinformation. He also stressed the importance of the Digital Service Act (DSA).
In his intervention, Guellner also addressed a key dilemma: the concern that efforts to combat certain types of content could be perceived as undue interference with freedom of expression, where everyone has the right to share their opinions. He emphasised that our openness has been exploited by bad-faith actors who weaponise speech to spread fake news and fuel hostility under the guise of presenting diverse opinions.
Guellner stressed that only a cross-cutting approach, combined with a comprehensive legislative framework, can effectively combat disinformation while safeguarding freedom of expression. Spreading disinformation and lies as a tactic to manipulate public opinion and undermine human rights has nothing to do with genuine freedom of expression – particularly since disinformation is often paired with suppression of dissenting voices.
Key Takeaways:
- Ensuring access to accurate information: Governments, civil society, and media organisations must work together to provide verifiable and unbiased information while minimising disinformation.
- Balancing disinformation regulation with free expression protections: Legal frameworks should avoid being weaponised against journalists and public watchdogs.
- Cross-border nature of disinformation: The lack of national communication boundaries requires international cooperation to resist manipulative practices.
- Public awareness and digital literacy: Strengthening public resilience requires education initiatives that enable individuals to critically assess information.
- Advertisers’ role in countering disinformation: Companies should be discouraged from funding media outlets that spread false narratives.
- Platform accountability: Online platforms must ensure their policies do not facilitate the spread of disinformation.
This session underscored the importance of collective action in addressing disinformation while protecting freedom of expression. By reinforcing media independence, improving regulatory frameworks, and fostering media literacy, societies can build resilience against manipulative narratives that threaten democratic values.