About eight years ago, we at Dezentrum gave one of our first major presentations. We talked about Cambridge Analytica. Their website featured a picture of Donald Trump. The company, which later fell into disrepute, presented itself as one of his most important campaign aides. What became apparent in this context was the potential of digital technologies, the power of data-driven campaigns, microtargeting, disinformation and strategically generated polarisation.
These issues had a profound impact on us. They led us to take a close look at digital media literacy. We wanted to understand how opinion-forming works in the digital space and how people can be empowered to navigate it independently.
The basic assumption was clear: if people have a better understanding of how digital public spheres work, they will be better able to recognise manipulative dynamics, and democracy will become more resilient.
In the years that followed, we implemented numerous projects in the field of digital literacy. We developed formats to combat radicalisation on the internet. We worked with school classes, teachers, social workers and youth workers. We discussed algorithms, filter bubbles, disinformation, platform logic and democratic responsibility.
And yes: this work is important. It remains important.
Education is a fundamental prerequisite for democracy.
But if we take a sober look at the situation today, we must also ask an uncomfortable question: why are we still doing this?
The longer we work in this field, the clearer it becomes that media literacy alone cannot compensate for structural problems. At times, it feels like fighting a storm with an air pump. Because the challenges are not only individual, but systemic.
When business models are based on maximum attention,
when outrage generates reach,
when disinformation is cheap to produce and globally scalable,
when platform architectures reinforce polarisation –
then educational projects operate against an infrastructure that is optimised in a different direction.
Educational work can only be as effective as the information environment in which it takes place.
The more fragile the public information base, the more difficult this work becomes.
And this is precisely the crux of the current debate surrounding the halving initiative.
A democratic public sphere needs more than critical individuals:
it needs reliable institutions. It needs media companies that research, classify, verify and contextualise. It needs public service offerings that are not primarily optimised for click rates, but for social responsibility.
When these structures are weakened, the burden shifts increasingly to the individual. And that is too much to ask. Digital media literacy is necessary. But it is no substitute for a functioning public information infrastructure.
That is why it is clear to us: as members of digital civil society, we will say a resounding NO to this initiative on 8 March.
Not because public service media are perfect, but because democracy cannot function without a stable information base.
Eight years of work in the field of digital literacy have taught us a lot. Above all, one thing: education is essential – but without strong media structures, it remains a defensive battle against the storm.
