Democratic rights and freedoms at a crossroads?

Summary

Inside Geneva: Democratic Rights and Freedoms at a Crossroads?

Host: Imogen Foulkes
Producer: SWI swissinfo.ch
Release Date: April 1, 2025

Overview:
In this episode of Inside Geneva, host Imogen Foulkes delves into the precarious state of democracy and human rights globally, with a particular focus on Nicaragua's slide into authoritarianism and concerns about democratic erosion in the United States. The episode features in-depth interviews with Reid Brodie, a seasoned human rights lawyer on the UN Human Rights Council's group of experts, and Alberto Fernandez Guibaja, Head of Digitalization and Democracy at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Additionally, the episode examines the influence of big tech on democratic processes, reflecting on the 2024 election cycle.

---

1. Introduction to the Episode

Imogen Foulkes sets the stage by highlighting a scene in Boston where plainclothes immigration officers apprehend a Turkish graduate student, reflecting broader concerns about governmental crackdowns under the Trump administration.

Key Quote:
"This weekend, the man who was leading the protests on the Columbia University campus in favor of Palestinian rights was arrested pending deportation."
— Reid Brodie [11:44]

---

2. Reid Brodie on Nicaragua’s Authoritarian Shift

Background:
Reid Brodie recounts his long-standing engagement with Nicaragua, beginning in the 1980s during the Sandinista revolution which aimed to overthrow the US-backed Somoza dictatorship. Initially supportive, Brodie's perspective shifted as he witnessed human rights abuses perpetrated by the Contras, leading him to dedicate his career to human rights advocacy.

Discussion Points:

• Sandinista Transformation:
  Brodie explains how Daniel Ortega's Sandinista government devolved into authoritarianism after losing the 1990 elections, returning to power in 2007 and consolidating power over the next 17 years. Ortega’s administration, along with his wife, has entrenched a family dictatorship, amending the constitution to allow co-presidents capable of appointing successors, potentially their children.

  Key Quote:
  "So this man who had fought against a family dictatorship now has actually put into the constitution a family dictatorship that also they have the power to name their vice presidents and people are suspecting that they will name their children."
  — Reid Brodie [07:06]

• Impact of UN Reports:
  Brodie discusses the limited immediate impact of UN reports on Nicaragua, noting that while the country has exited the Human Rights Council, the documentation serves to support the Nicaraguan opposition and enforce targeted sanctions.

  Key Quote:
  "People rely on the reports. It gives succor to the opposition. They see their names, they see what they have endured being reported as fact by the United Nations."
  — Reid Brodie [10:04]

---

3. Reid Brodie on Democratic Concerns in the United States

Analysis of US Political Climate:
Brodie draws parallels between Nicaragua and the United States, expressing grave concerns over what he describes as a "coup d'état" orchestrated by Donald Trump. He highlights the erosion of constitutional checks and balances, manipulation of governmental agencies, and attacks on free speech.

Key Points:

• Erosion of Constitutional Norms:
  Brodie asserts that Trump is dismantling foundational democratic structures, appropriating powers beyond the presidency, and undermining the separation of powers.

  Key Quote:
  "Donald Trump is unraveling the Constitution, where I believe we could describe this as a coup d'etat."
  — Reid Brodie [00:32]

• Attacks on Free Speech:
  Incidents such as the arrest of protest leaders and pressure on educational institutions exemplify the suppression of dissent and free expression.

  Key Quote:
  "This is the kind of thing that happens in Russia, that happens in Nicaragua. People who are afraid that if they've been fired from their government jobs or whatever, but they're actually afraid to give their names because of retaliation."
  — Reid Brodie [14:15]

• Fear and Retaliation:
  Brodie notes a chilling effect where Americans are increasingly afraid to speak out, akin to authoritarian regimes.

  Key Quote:
  "For the first time in my life, I am listening on the radio, on tv, to Americans talking to the press and refusing to use their names because they are afraid of retaliation."
  — Reid Brodie [02:13]

---

4. Alberto Fernandez Guibaja on Digitalization and Democracy

Role of Social Media and AI in Elections:
Alberto Fernandez Guibaja reflects on the 2024 elections, initially predicted to be highly disrupted by social media and artificial intelligence. Contrary to expectations, the elections proceeded without severe technological interference, though he contemplates the long-term erosion of democratic principles through digital influence.

Key Points:

• Impact Assessment of 2024 Elections:
  Guibaja acknowledges that while the immediate effects were manageable, the prolonged "dripping effect" of social media continues to undermine a shared reality essential for democracy.

  Key Quote:
  "Social media is probably more of like a long dripping effect that keeps eroding one of the fundamental tenets of democracy, which is having a shared reality."
  — Alberto Fernandez Guibaja [02:45]

• Weaponizing Reality:
  The fragmentation of reality leads to polarized societies where consensus on facts becomes unattainable, weakening democratic discourse.

  Key Quote:
  "Once you don't have a shared reality, it becomes relatively easy to weaponize that part of society that is losing touch with reality."
  — Alberto Fernandez Guibaja [02:45]

---

5. The Intersection of Big Tech and Politics

Influence of Tech Giants:
The episode revisits the substantial presence of tech leaders like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos in political arenas, emphasizing their role in shaping public discourse and potentially swaying political outcomes.

Key Points:

• Support for Political Parties:
  Elon Musk's support for the Republican Party and his control over platforms like X (formerly Twitter) raise concerns about the impartiality of information dissemination.

• Perception of Censorship:
  Guibaja discusses the narrative pushed by conservative factions that European regulations on social media constitute censorship, a viewpoint amplified by influential tech figures.

  Key Quote:
  "We have to push tech platforms to understand that it's actually not even in their interest to do that. Most of their revenue comes from products from selling clothes, trips, houses, but not from selling political ideas."
  — Alberto Fernandez Guibaja [32:03]

---

6. Strategies to Reinforce Democracy

Proposed Solutions by Guibaja:
To combat democratic erosion, Guibaja suggests several strategies:

• Political Integrity:
  Political actors must maintain moral clarity and avoid engaging in divisive tactics that distort reality.

• Television Accountability:
  Protecting the integrity of information on TV by ensuring that credible sources are prioritized over sensationalist content.

• Education and Accountability:
  Enhancing media literacy through education and implementing accountability measures for social media platforms, focusing on content ranking algorithms and monetization practices.

  Key Quote:
  "We need to push tech platforms to understand that it's actually not even in their interest to do that... We need to understand and to research ways to make sure that the algorithm fits you with healthy fact based political content."
  — Alberto Fernandez Guibaja [32:03]

---

7. Concluding Insights and Future Directions

Reflections:
Both Brodie and Guibaja express deep concerns about the future of democracy, emphasizing the need for proactive measures to safeguard human rights and democratic institutions against internal and external threats.

Upcoming Topics:
Imogen Foulkes previews future episodes, including discussions on toxic masculinity and perspectives from young people in the global south.

---

Notable Additional Quotes:

• Reid Brodie on the US Situation:
  "We're living a very, very dangerous moment in the United States."
  — Reid Brodie [11:44]

• Guibaja on Shared Reality:
  "The battle is not about I want to solve the problem doing this thing or this other thing. It's a battle between two realities."
  — Alberto Fernandez Guibaja [19:19]

• Brodie on Fear of Retaliation:
  "They're afraid to speak out."
  — Reid Brodie [14:15]

---

Conclusion

This episode of Inside Geneva offers a sobering analysis of the fragility of democratic institutions in the face of authoritarian tendencies and the pervasive influence of digital technologies. Through the expertise of Reid Brodie and Alberto Fernandez Guibaja, listeners gain nuanced insights into the mechanisms undermining democracy and potential pathways to reinforce democratic resilience.

---

Subscribe and Listen:
Stay informed by subscribing to Inside Geneva on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform. Engage with the content by sharing your thoughts and suggestions for future episodes at Inside Geneva SWI swissinfo.ch.

Transcript

[Imogen Folks]

This is Inside Geneva. I'm your host, Imogen folks, and this is a production from Swiss Info, the international public media company of Switzerland. In today's program, a quiet street in Boston, the scene of the latest Trump government crackdown. Plainclothes immigration officers surround a Turkish graduate student.

[Reid Brodie]

Donald Trump is unraveling the Constitution, where I believe we could describe this as a coup d'etat. I think we're living a very, very dangerous moment in the United States. And as an American, I think it's obviously even more important to be talking about that.

[Alberto Fernandez Guibaja]

After months of backing Donald Trump online and on the campaign trail, Elon Musk is set to play a key role in the incoming administration. It is fine for Instagram or for TikTok to realize that I am into biking and then try to sell me bikes. That's fine. That's a product. Manipulate me to sell me that. That has happened throughout history, but that's not fine with political ideas.

[Imogen Folks]

Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva. I'm Imogen folks, and in today's program, we've got two in depth interviews for you where we'll take a deep dive into the many challenges to democracy and human rights. We'll hear first from Reid Brodie, longtime human rights lawyer who is now on the UN Human Rights Council's group of experts on Nicaragua. He'll bring us key insights into how Daniel Ortega's Sandinista government slipped into authoritarianism. But he'll also tell us about his concerns for his own country, the United States.

[Reid Brodie]

For the first time in my life, I am listening on the radio, on tv, to Americans talking to the press and refusing to use their names because they are afraid of retaliation. That's the kind of thing that happens in Russia, that happens in Nicaragua.

[Imogen Folks]

And then later in the program, we'll talk to Alberto Fernandez Kibaja, head of Digitalization and Democracy and at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Some of our listeners may remember we talked to him just last year about the many elections taking place in 2024 and whether social media or even artificial intelligence could be a threat to the democratic process. Today, we catch up with Alberto again and ask him to take stock.

[Alberto Fernandez Guibaja]

Social media is probably more of like a long dripping effect that keeps eroding one of the fundamental tenets of democracy, which is having a shared reality. Once you don't have a shared reality, it becomes relatively easy to weaponize that part of society that is losing touch with reality. And then for those of us who believe that, that we share our reality and our reality based on Facts and science. We are in the losing side.

[Imogen Folks]

Alberto Fernandez coming up in the second half of the program. But first let's talk to Reid Brodie, longtime human rights defender and currently scrutinizing alleged violations in Nicaragua on behalf of the UN Human Rights Council. But as he told me, his interest in Nicaragua goes back decades and, and began with a very different perspective in the 1980s.

[Reid Brodie]

People of my generation, we were very interested in the Sandinista revolution that had overthrown decades of US backed dictatorship in Nicaragua and was trying to build a new society of literacy campaigns, health care for the poor. And so I went to Nicaragua with a friend of mine whose brother was a parish priest in a little village in northern Nicaragua. And people started telling us these stories about how the US financed and backed former remnants of Somoza's, the dictators National Guard and were coming in and in this village had been attacked and people I met, people whose family members had been killed before their eyes. And they like, don't people in your country know what's going on here? You've got to go back and do something. And I felt for the first time I was not a human rights lawyer. I was working at the New York State Attorney General's office. But I just felt this incredible obligation to do something about what I had seen. And I came back to New York, I quit my job, I went back to Nicaragua. And I spent five months going around the war zones in Nicaragua interviewing victims of Contra attacks and witnesses to people whose houses had been burned down, people whose villages had been attacked, teachers, health care workers, women who had been raped. It was my first experience doing this kind of thing. I didn't know, I'd never studied international law. And when I came back to Washington with hundreds of testimonies, affidavits, I came back just as President Reagan was describing the Contras as the moral equivalent of America's founding Fathers and was seeking additional military assistance to the Contras. I mean, my report was on the front page of the New York Times and it concentrated enough minds in a divided Congress actually to deny Reagan the assistance he wanted.

[Unnamed Interviewer]

Let's fast forward a little bit because the United States, the things that went on in the 70s and 80s, its role in Latin America are fairly well documented, not least by you. And we know that grave, grave human rights abuses took place in the US interest of theoretically keeping left wing politicians out of their backyard. That's how I think it was described at the time. And you're right that some of these governments were fettered by Europeans, by North Americans thinking, as you said, free education, free health care, they're doing a good job. But fast forward 40 years, the Sandinista government has not turned out so great. And ironically now, after having investigated violations which were intended to destabilize that government, now you're on a UN panel looking at violations committed by that Sandinista government. How does that feel in terms of your irony factor?

[Reid Brodie]

Well, first I should say that it's not all of the Sandinistas. Most of the people who were comrades in arms of Daniel Ortega's, most of the people who fought in the revolution and are around, most of the people who are in the government are now in the opposition. So we're really looking at in particular Daniel Ortega, who, you know, they lost elections in 1990, the war weary people of Nicaragua voted them out. It looked like multiparty democracy was going to flourish. But Ortega then purged the Sandinista movement. He made deals with right wing politics, came back into office in 2007, 17 years later, and has not given up power since. I have to say, I mean for me it's, there's this poetic arc now to my career that, you know, it's why I wanted to do this. It gives me no, I mean it gives me no satisfaction to see what has happened over the last 17 years that Daniel has been back in power. His wife has gotten more and more power. And now this new constitution that was enacted just a few weeks ago actually creates a male co president and a female co president. So this man who had fought against a family dictatorship now has actually put into the constitution a family dictatorship that also they have the power to name their vice presidents and people are suspecting that they will name their children. So I think it's certainly there are many cautionary tales here that I personally have learned and that we all need to think about. But you know, I feel like I haven't changed. My goals are the same. My work is still based on principle. I mean, at the time I didn't, 40 years ago I'd never heard of the Geneva Conventions when I was doing this. I'd never heard of war crimes and stuff. I talked about atrocities and abuses. And now of course I'm much more tooled to do all the things that I'm doing. And of course we have a big team then. I was really on my own doing this. And now with our UN fact finding mission, or group of experts as it's called, we have a whole staff based in Panama that is doing most of actually the legwork.

[Unnamed Interviewer]

Your report does detail graft, corruption, nepotism, suppression of opposition, repression of civil society. In response, Nicaragua have left the Human Rights Council. The US Beat them to the exit because the United States has left as well. So, I mean, I'm wondering, given the kind of atmosphere there seems to be about might making right rather than right making right, if you like, can reports like yours do any good anymore?

[Reid Brodie]

I think that, you know, obviously that's an important question that we ask ourselves. And we try to look at how a report can make a difference. And our report is really, I mean, the head press release is titled An Appeal to the International Community to do Something. You know, we don't expect. The Nicaraguan government. I mean, the Nicaraguan government has never responded to our request. I mean, like most of the UN Commissions of inquiry, we don't actually get to go to the country. The Nicaraguan government has never even bothered to respond to our letters. But what we're saying is, look, here are the people who are involved today. You know, that opens them up to individual targeted sanctions, of which many countries have already sanctioned. People in Nicaragua, the situation in Nicaragua has not gotten better since we've been reporting. But people rely on the reports. It gives succor to the opposition. They see their names, they see what they have endured being reported as fact by the United Nations. And I think there are many side benefits to what we do.

[Unnamed Interviewer]

You talked about what's been happening in Nicaragua, that the president, the vice president, man and wife, have consolidated power to themselves. They're kind of dismantling the checks and balances, the separation of powers. You're American. Are you concerned for your own country that something similar is happening? I mean, you used to work here in Geneva at the International Commission of Jurists. You've written extensively about attacks on judges and lawyers. We do seem to be seeing that kind of thing going on in the US Certainly a bit of a power grab.

[Reid Brodie]

Absolutely. You know, it is a desperate situation, a dramatic situation where Donald Trump is unraveling the Constitution, where I believe we could describe this as a coup d'etat that's happening where powers that do not belong to the president are being arrogated by the president. The separation of powers is being eviscerated. Money that was appropriated by Congress is not being spent. Agencies that were established by Congress are being dismantled. The civil service protections are being undermined. I think we're living a very, very dangerous moment in the United States. And as an American, I think it's obviously even more important because of the power of the United States. To be talking about that. Unfortunately, we're seeing the free speech tradition be trampled on in the United States. This weekend, the man who was leading the protests on the Columbia University campus in favor of Palestinian rights was arrested pending deportation. A man with a green card married to an American citizen. The U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia wrote to Georgetown Law School requesting information about their policies on diversity, equity and inclusion and saying the federal government is not going to hire law students who come from schools that preach or practice diversity equity. I mean, these are major attacks on free speech. So it's not only the traditions that are different. I mean, today we are seeing that people. For the first time in my life, I am listening on the radio, on tv, to Americans talking to the press and refusing to use their names because they are afraid of retaliation. That's the kind of thing that happens in Russia, that happens in Nicaragua. People who are afraid that if they've been fired from their government jobs or whatever, but they're actually afraid to give their names because of retaliation. Students. And I think this is particularly dealing with Middle east issues, often where a college student, a law student, would be really very brave to stand up for Palestinian rights today because of the effect that will have on their. Their lives and their careers. But more generally, people who stand up to what is going on are afraid today. They're afraid to give their names. They're afraid to speak out.

[Unnamed Interviewer]

So I've got one last question for you, which would maybe bring us back to kind of where we started, you know, defending human rights. People's general opinion of these guardrails that came in, most of them after the Second World War for a very good reason, this never again moment, people's faith in those things. People tend to be a bit irritated by them. How can we get back a kind of faith and respect that actually, to prevent real barbarism, we need these things? How can we inspire people? I mean, you spent your life defending human rights. How can we reinspire people?

[Reid Brodie]

Well, I think education in many ways. I think also the human rights movement has lost touch with. With people. Many people in Europe and the United States do not see themselves as beneficiaries of the human rights movement, but they are. But of course, they are all saying, you know, social media and the horrible results of algorithms and atomization of people, the reducing of the public space where people come together. I mean, I look at what my son and his friends are listening to and watching, and I realize that there's no. There's no common debate anymore. I mean, in the old days, you had, for better or for worse, you had only a few stations on tv, you had dialogue. Now, people, you know, in the United States in particular is a very divided country in which the people, progressives live in cities, they read certain newspapers, they watch certain TVs, and conservatives live in other places. Physically, we're separated. Mentally, we're separated. We come together in different places and the algorithms weaponize that, in a sense. And I'm worried that there's a reality that's being created by the media. And obviously, at a certain point in the US as the state is totally dismantled, we're going to see some very serious soon, we're going to see really bad stuff happen. And it'd be interesting to see whether the government continues to blame it on what happened before, whether we have martial law. I would not exclude. I mean, the guardrails have come off and I'm very scared of where we're headed.

[Imogen Folks]

Reid Brodie there with a worrying take on what's happening in the United States right now.

[Reid Brodie]

Please raise your right hand and repeat after me.

[Donald Trump]

I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear.

[Reid Brodie]

I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear.

[Donald Trump]

Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and the CEOs of Apple and Google, who have all been invited to sit right up on the platform where Trump will be sworn in along.

[Imogen Folks]

Now many of us will remember the tech giants lined up behind Donald Trump at his inauguration. Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, and of course, Elon Musk, who has been handed enormous power by the president. Last year we devoted a whole episode of Inside Geneva to how much big tech, whether it's social media or artificial intelligence, might influence the democratic process. Alberto Fernandez Gubaja of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance joined us then. And today he's back. So how did we do in that big election year of 2024?

[Alberto Fernandez Guibaja]

I will say, even if it doesn't look like it, I think we did pretty well. 2024 had around 60 elections. It depends how you count. And when it comes to the role that social media and digital technologies play in the elections, I think we did pretty well, especially considering that we started the year saying we started 2024 saying it's going to be a disaster. Artificial intelligence is going to be a game changer. It will disrupt every single election that is coming. And largely that didn't happen. We are still in a phase of understanding exactly why it didn't happen, trying to also grasp if there is something we are missing, if there is something that we didn't see and did happen. But in general I think that aspect of the elections was fine. What maybe wasn't that good were some of the results of these elections. But I don't think we can draw a very causality line between the results of those elections, the policies of the people that got elected, and the way social media and digital technologies and artificial intelligence influence those elections.

[Unnamed Interviewer]

Let's look at all eyes are on actually the United States, which had an election at the end of last year. Pretty clear result, a Democratic election, but nevertheless we did also see a combination of the world's richest man, Elon Musk, financially supporting a particular party, the Republicans, and also spreading policies or attitudes that he supports on the media platform that he owns, X, formerly Twitter. Now obviously we can't say this changed the result of the election in the United States, but people are worried that that kind of thing is happening.

[Alberto Fernandez Guibaja]

You're right. I don't think we can say that changed the results of the elections. And I think this is something that we need to have a lot of clarity on this. So far we don't really have a case in which we can say digital technologies change the results of the elections. Without digital technologies the result will have been different. Let's say without social media, let's be concrete, without the weaponization of social media communications, the results will have been different. It is obvious that it influenced a lot, but I think we tend to focus on the very short term on the campaign trail and the last couple of months. And the effect of social media is probably more of like a long dripping effect that keeps eroding for me one of the fundamental tenants of democracy, which is having a shared reality. If people don't share a reality, we can disagree on the solutions, but we need to agree on what is real and what is not. And that effect is very long term. So I think one of the lessons is that probably the reason why this type of politics, I read recently somebody that speaks about demanufacturing consent, that approach to politics is successful because we have come through many years of eroding the grasp on reality of a significant percentage of the population, not only in the United States, but globally. And once you don't have a shared reality, then it becomes relatively easy to weaponize that part of society that is losing touch with reality. And then the battle is not about I want to solve the problem doing this thing or this other thing. The battle is about what the reality is. It's a battle between two realities. For those of us who believe that we share our reality and our reality based on facts and science. We are in the losing side because it's very difficult to speak about the problems of society with somebody that doesn't seem to be living in the same planet, doesn't seem to be sharing your own physical time, space. We don't know what to do about that.

[Unnamed Interviewer]

Well, let's take one specific example. We had, or we have now tensions between Europe and the United States. A wide gulf of misunderstanding and dislike, certainly it seems, from the United States towards Europe. Now. We had the vice president, J.D. vance, come to Europe and say that Europe did not have free speech. I was in the United States in October of last year and a few American people said, oh, I feel so sorry for you, you don't have free speech. I mean, how do you challenge this? Is this really a thing that people believe or is it something that's being pushed by big tech so that they can have unfettered access? Because we know that Europe is the one continent which is trying to establish some guardrails in safety around social media, around AI I think it's also important.

[Alberto Fernandez Guibaja]

To understand that there is a difference between the concept of freedom of speech that the US has and the European Union or Europe in general has. I would say the one in Europe is a little bit more restrictive without saying that it restricts freedom of speech, but it's a little bit more based on protecting certain groups. We have a history in Europe of going too far and letting certain political groups start pushing certain narratives that ended up in basically one of the most horrific actions of the human being in our history. So there is a different understanding of the concept. I don't think people believe it because if your information diet is online bubbles of ultra conservative influencers, Fox News, Elon Musk and all that bubble you probably keep hearing that there is censorship, that all the legislation in Europe is about censoring voices, that all the laws that are there are about trying to silence and muscle those that are different, or that they trying to raise their voice and speak from the people. This is a very classic populist strategy. So they probably believe that it is also true that they probably don't have a lot of alternative views on how things work in Europe or in other parts of the world. I mean, this will probably apply anywhere else. And the companies, I mean, I don't know. But I will say maybe strategically seeing what they have been doing recently, maybe strategically they're not going to be the ones standing up for Europe and European legislation and say, look, the legislation follows human rights and it protects freedom of speech. What I think is a very important aspect is that the conservative Republican Party today and the current administration in the United States started a few years ago like a front attack on any attempt to make our digital ecosystems healthier. And they won. Basically, we have to admit, they actually won. They managed to shift the opinion of all the population, or a big part of the population from we need to put some protections in the way digital communications or information moves around social media towards any protection that you place is censorship. And they have managed to do that and they have managed to convince a lot of people about that. They managed to close the Stanford Internet Observatory, which was probably the best research center in the world when it comes to the role of content moderation policies, the role of algorithms, and basically how information on the Internet influenced the world. And they say it's a censorship complex. What they're actually saying, what they're actually trying to do is we don't want those because we benefit from this. This is the way we mobilize our population, our voters, we bring them to an alternative reality.

[Unnamed Interviewer]

Are you worried?

[Alberto Fernandez Guibaja]

I'm extremely worried. I think it changed country by country. It might be that the American population was a little bit more prime for this, but I think this is bound to happen everywhere else in the world. And I don't know if all countries are protected, not even the European Union, it's necessarily protected. And we have seen already. So it's more of a warning rather than an exception. We have already seen this happening in other countries. We have already seen people losing touch with reality because their information diet becomes a few political influencers, certain social media accounts, they just fall into a rabbit hole where everything makes sense, where their capacity to make sense of the world is sharp by these people. So it's not that everybody needs to read the New York Times or the Guardian or what's the BBC, that kind of like source of information that is trustable. But when your only information comes from political influencers who are just making a buck, just making money. And to make money, they need to say something every time a little bit worse than the previous thing. So the algorithm keeps them popping up in your time feed and so on. They're just making money when that's the only diet. Those plus TV channels that have one objective, which is again, mobilize these people. I mean, it is very difficult to find that. It is very, very difficult.

[Unnamed Interviewer]

You sound quite pessimistic and concerned. What can we actually do?

[Alberto Fernandez Guibaja]

There are things that we can do. The first one is for political parties and candidates that truly believe in democracy, that truly believe that democracy should be just a ballet of ideas. They should realize that there is nothing wrong with moral clarity. If you get into those games, you're going to lose. There will always be one more radical person that will weaponize people and twist reality. So if you are a rational actor in the political game, you need to draw a line and you need to ally with those that are actually on your side. In terms of. I want to convince people with arguments and ideas and facts. Exactly. That's the most important. We need to, we need to do that. The second thing that we need to do, and this is going to sound very counterintuitive, is address tv. The TV remains the main vector of this information. People, a lot of people, the moment they see an idea on tv, it's like, see, that has to be, that has to be true. It's on tv. The moment TV tries to bring two opinions and then it's like, here is a scientist with 25 years of experience researching vaccines and here is no one that has a popular YouTube channel. You can't do that. You can't do that. You need to protect information integrity on tv because even though youth people have a problem on how they get information, the main group of people that moving on an alternative reality is actually the 55 plus so TV. It's extremely important. We do need to educate kids in schools, but that's going to take a long time. And we need proper accountability regimes for social media platforms. And those accountability regimes should focus on content ranking, algorithms and on monetization. For me, those are the two aspects we still haven't managed to grasp how to address. It is fine for Instagram or for TikTok to realize that I am into biking and then try to sell me bikes, that's fine. And if I get into bike influencers, then they will feed me with more bites and more publicity about bikes and so on. That's fine. That's a product manipulate me to sell me that. That has happened throughout history. But that's not fine with political ideas. And we need to push tech platforms to understand that it's actually not even in their interest to do that. Most of their revenue comes from products from selling clothes, trips, houses, but not from selling political ideas. So we need to understand and to research ways to make sure that the algorithm fits you with healthy fact based political content.

[Unnamed Interviewer]

That's not going to be easy.

[Alberto Fernandez Guibaja]

That's very difficult. But it's actually, we haven't even tried so even if we don't get it 100% right, if it's only 80% right, that's going to be an 80% improvement of what we have today.

[Imogen Folks]

And that brings us to the end of this episode of Inside Geneva. My thanks to Reid Brodie and Alberto Fernandez Guibaja for their time and their perspectives. We hope you enjoyed this episode. Do drop us a line at Inside GenevaissInfo. Check with your thoughts, questions or even ideas for new programs. Coming up over the next few weeks, we're planning to look at the UN Human Rights Commissioner's concerns about toxic masculinity. Is it a problem? And if it is, what can or should the UN and governments be doing about it? And we'll be hearing from Generation South. Young people from the global south. Give us their views on the biggest challenges facing facing the planet and what we should be doing to solve them. Do join us next time on Inside Geneva. A reminder. You've been listening to Inside Geneva, a Swiss info production. You can subscribe to us and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Check out our previous episodes, how the International Red Carpet Cross Unites Prisoners of War with Their Families or why Survivors of Human Rights Violations Turn to the UN In Geneva for Justice. I'm Imogen folks, thanks again for listening.

[Unnamed Parent]

What would you do to protect your family?

Becoming a parent definitely is a very emotional thing.

How far would you go to protect them from future disease?

You suddenly care about something more than you care about yourself. And we live in a world that is filled with things that can go wrong.

And what if there was a solution? From the second your child is born.

[Donald Trump]

When you decide to preserve your baby's cord blood, you are making an incredible investment in the future of your entire family's health.

[Unnamed Parent]

They would all tell you you're doing this for your child. It will maybe help them later on.

That's the promise of stem cell research. A future in which your baby's stem cells can be used to cure serious diseases.

[Donald Trump]

Today, newborn stem cells found in cord blood are being used to treat over 80 conditions.

[Unnamed Interviewer]

We'll keep those amazing cells safe for you.

[Alberto Fernandez Guibaja]

Frozen in time we saw a light.

[Unnamed Parent]

At the end of the tunnel. That was our daughter.

Every breakthrough brings hope and new promises.

With our child's stem cells, we can cure my illness.

[Alberto Fernandez Guibaja]

It made sense to decide for the bank that had its headquarters in Switzerland. It gives some additional credibility.

[Unnamed Parent]

But promises can be broken.

That's why the marketing is so clever, because the idea is that you will forget about it because hopefully your kids will be fine.

We felt like we had failed our daughter in a very important way.

The idea that's a part of their kid is out there. It's frightening. They feel that in a way, they failed their kids by doing something in which they were trying to protect them.

This is a story of how hope can turn sour and spark a global quest to recover the cells and the most precious thing they contain life.

I don't know if it was the biggest mistake of my life, but I do know that if today I knew all the things that have happened to me, if I knew then I wouldn't have signed with them.

If you store money, you can go the next day and take it out. With stem cells, it's much more complicated.

And then they said, well, we don't have a legal department. And I just started laughing and they said, don't worry, you will have one very soon.

Lost Cells, an original Swiss info podcast in collaboration with Piers Gloria Productions, Future Pro and Studio Orcenter. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.