Memes, freedom, and resilience to information disorders: Information warfare between democracies and autocracies

Abstract

The information challenges faced by liberal democracies in the post-truth era are largely related to the concept of freedom. While freedom and security are often positioned as dichotomous concepts, striking a delicate balance between them for democratic country becomes a challenge. Autocracies, meanwhile, have adeptly engaged in information warfare, exploiting both the asymmetric nature of sharp power and the obligation of democracies to uphold freedom.

This is particularly evident in the realm of the Internet and social media, where the nature of communication amplifies opportunities for malicious actors. Additionally, the visual power of the Internet, largely embodied in memes, emotionally resonates with audiences. Memes act as agents of influence and change, shaping values and perceptions, and become instruments of information disorder by simplifying complex issues through emotionally charged content. They spread rapidly and are difficult to trace. Through this process, memes contribute to identity creation and transformation, advancing broader political aims, popularizing political leaders and regimes, exploiting sensitive topics from both the present and the past, and heightening the sense of social inequality.

This article aims at comprehending how meme as an information warfare tool functions in the democratic and autocratic contexts. We find that while well-coordinated dissemination of pro-authoritarian content could make open media markets in democracies vulnerable to manipulation, and state controlled in the autocracies makes the latter more resilient. However, we argue that this asymmetry should not lead liberal democracies to prioritize physical resilience methods over cognitive ones, as the mid-term effectiveness of the cognitive approach (“teaching people how to fish”) may ultimately prove more sustainable. Over-reliance on stricter measures in liberal democracies may have drawbacks, potentially undermining the very freedoms they aim to protect.