Facts vs. Impressions
Is society losing the ability to think critically?
Are people losing the ability to accept uncomfortable opinions?
Are we slipping into a black-and-white
worldview?
Everyone has the right to their opinion and to share it
Do you want to know our opinion?
An exchange of opinions is a fundamental condition for any progress. We want to help bring back the ability to accept even uncomfortable or unpleasant opinions into the online environment, and for people to stop being ashamed of their views. However, critical and open discussion has gradually been replaced by “impressionology.”
How does it look in practice?
“How can you criticize Donald Trump when you were against the Covid vaccination?”
“How can you defend Israel when you stand on the side of Ukraine?”
The feeling that if I agree with someone on one thing, we must share the same opinion on everything, that everyone belongs to a certain opinion camp, and the labeling of others—these are the results of manipulation and so-called social bubbles in the online space.
A lie is not an opinion!”
“You have a right to your opinion, not to your own truth!”
We are being overwhelmed by catchy slogans that carry no real substance. Values such as “truth” and “falsehood” require the existence of a judge—someone who determines what is “truth” and what is “falsehood.” Even the law considers these terms to be evaluative statements. An opinion is not “bad” or harmful just because it later turns out to be incorrect, or because it contradicts the prevailing opinion or scientific consensus. Legally penalizing an incorrect opinion is not possible in a democratic system.
The sharing of an opinion can only become harmful if it is spread with the intent to deceive or otherwise harm another person. Therefore, the problem is not a bad opinion, but malicious intent.
- We want to help bring openness back into the discussion. At the same time, we want everyone to be aware that by publishing or sharing someone else’s opinion, they assume a certain level of responsibility. Freedom cannot exist without responsibility.
- We do not want the state to regulate debate or punish individuals for their opinions. Bans must only apply to genuinely and immediately dangerous behavior (the spread of slander, specific threats, targeted repetitive attacks). Regulation should serve solely to protect the actual fundamental rights and freedoms of a specific person. Furthermore, everyone must have effective tools to defend their rights.
Truth cannot be found by silencing narratives, but through open discussion
Do you want to know our opinion?
The identification of narratives has become the primary tool for protection against harmful opinions. What does this mean? Certain groups compile lists of opinions that, in their view, do not belong in the public space. Those who hold such opinions are then labeled (disinformer, pro-Russian troll, anti-vaxxer, etc.).
The exclusion of narratives is not a tool for seeking the truth, protecting society, or building a safe online space. It is a manipulative tool that results in people fearing to share their own opinions (self-censorship) and active interventions against certain views (censorship). In order to evaluate the opinions of others, it is not enough to know WHO thinks so or WHAT they think; we must know WHY they think so.
For the restoration of public debate, it is absolutely essential that we reject the categorization of people based on the “narratives” they communicate. The exclusion of narratives denies individual identity, introduces a principle of collective guilt, and goes against the very core of humanism—against human dignity.
- We want to help bring openness back into the discussion. At the same time, we want everyone to be aware that by publishing or sharing someone else’s opinion, they assume a certain level of responsibility. Freedom cannot exist without responsibility.
- We do not want the state to regulate debate or punish individuals for their opinions. Bans must only apply to genuinely and immediately dangerous behavior (the spread of slander, specific threats, targeted repetitive attacks). Regulation should serve solely to protect the actual fundamental rights and freedoms of a specific person. Furthermore, everyone must have effective tools to defend their rights.
People are losing the ability to face manipulation and "disinformation"
Do you want to know our opinion?
The online space is gradually being dominated by new-age elites—people who feel they understand information better than others and believe their role is to protect everyone else from “bad opinions.” They employ various techniques to achieve this, ranging from labeling and undermining people’s credibility and honor, to taking statements out of context and distorting them, to misusing terms like “security threat,” “pro-Russian agent,” and the like.
Media outlets, fact-checking agencies, and various influencers overwhelm the online space with evaluations of other people’s opinions without ever admitting their own infallibility. Standing up to them often means exposing oneself to their negative campaigns.
Under the weight of oversimplifications, manipulative statements, and personal attacks, people are losing the ability to form their own opinions. Our goal is to show how these manipulative techniques work. We want to help bring real opinions of real people back to the online space, instead of the shared creations of new-age elites. We also aim to analyze the work of influential “opinion-makers,” especially those funded by public or non-transparent sources. We do not want to ban or regulate their opinions. We simply want everyone to be able to form their own opinion and to have the information needed for their own evaluation.
- We will analyze the work of influential fact-checkers, especially those funded by public or non-transparent sources.
- We support everyone’s right to form their own opinion. People do not need to be taught what to think; they need access to information.
- We want to showcase examples of media manipulation and demonstrate how the fight against disinformation has become a tool for restricting free discussion.
FACT-CHECKING THE FACT-CHECKERS
The aim of the project is to continuously evaluate publicly available studies, analyses, fact-checking outputs, and other materials from which online media and the general public draw information to interpret public events and evaluate public figures, institutions, and social issues. The project does not focus on ideological or political evaluations of these sources, but on assessing their professional standard, transparency, methodological quality, quality of reasoning, and procedural fairness.
The subjects of our evaluation are entities that publish analyses, fact-checking articles, methodological materials, evaluative outputs, or other content products used by the media, the public, the non-profit sector, or public institutions.
Evaluation Criteria
The project is based on the Nielsen-Fürst criteria, adapted into a methodologically more precise form.
- Team
- Transparency of source information
- Transparency of work methodology
- Methodological quality
- Quality of reasoning
- Space for feedback and the opportunity for affected parties to respond
- Transparency of funding
The projects under evaluation will include, for example: Czech Skeptics’ Club Sisyfos, Association for International Affairs (AMO), CEDMO, Czech Elves, Demagog.cz, Facts on Climate, Manipulátoři.cz, Endowment Fund for Independent Journalism (NFNŽ), NELEŽ, Resilient Czechia, Ověřovna, Prague Security Studies Institute, SYRI consortium, and Zvol si info.
Currently, the evaluation of the Czech Skeptics’ Club Sisyfos is underway.
This work is not possible without the help of experts, including data analysts. If you like the project, please support our work.
What does manipulation look like?
It is interesting to observe how current topics are evaluated by different media. Our goal is to point out the tools of manipulation and help people navigate them.
