A Technical Fight Against “FIMI” That Few Understand
Brussels has ramped up its war on foreign disinformation – or “Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI)” in EU jargon – with task forces, sanctions, and annual threat reports. The European External Action Service (EEAS) even touts a “whole-of-society” toolbox for countering FIMI. In practice, however, the EU’s response leans heavily on complex analyses and insider networks of CSOs. The official FIMI reports read like they’re written by and for data analysts, packed with technical frameworks and acronyms (from the “ABCDE” threat model to the “STIX” data-sharing format). These documents are goldmines for experts, but to everyday Europeans they are virtually impenetrable. The result is a growing gap between Brussels’ high-tech defenses and the public they aim to protect.
Why Citizens’ Trust and Participation Matter
EU leaders know that fighting disinformation isn’t just about algorithms and regulations – it’s about people. “Our plan aims at protecting and promoting meaningful participation of citizens, empowering them to make their choices in the public space freely, without manipulation,” said European Commission Vice-President Věra Jourová when introducing the Democracy Action Plan. The logic is sound: if foreign propaganda preys on distrust, then an informed, engaged citizenry is the best vaccine. Yet building that trust has proved challenging. Surveys show Europeans are very concerned about disinformation – over 80% see it as a threat to democracy – but they aren’t sure who should lead the counterattack. Tellingly, in one EU poll more respondents put faith in journalists and national authorities to address “fake news” than in EU institutions. Only 21% thought the EU itself should take action, and a mere 4% supported an “all of them” coalition approach. This points to a trust gap: Europe’s ambitious strategy isn’t reaching its own citizens. As one analysis noted, the EU may have the right ideas on paper, but it is “failing to reach its own citizens” – a serious problem when public buy-in is crucial to success. Simply put, a whole-of-society fight can’t work if most of society feels uninvolved or in the dark.
The Missing Ingredient: A True Whole-of-Society Approach
EU officials frequently invoke the “whole-of-society” mantra to improve resilience, acknowledging that strong links between government, civil society, media and citizens are needed to build resilience. However this terminology often neglects that a whole-of-society approach requires locally led engagement where people are treated as part of the solution. Currently the EU helps fund independent media and fact-checking networks, runs media literacy campaigns, and coordinates with NGOs and researchers. The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), for instance, connects fact-checkers and scholars across Europe. And the EEAS’s own EUvsDisinfo project publishes accessible articles debunking Kremlin falsehoods in multiple languages But these efforts, while valuable, still struggle to truly empower the average citizen. Much of the action happens at the institutional level – exchanging alerts among governments or drafting codes of practice with tech companies. Where are the everyday Europeans in this fight? Too often, they are treated as an audience to be educated, rather than as active participants with insights to contribute. Technical reports and press releases do little to help someone scrolling their news feed discern fact from manipulation. And when policies are crafted in Brussels backrooms and announced with dense terminology, it feeds a perception that the EU’s disinformation agenda is a top-down technocratic affair. This perception is dangerous: without public understanding and trust, even well-intentioned measures can backfire or be met with indifference. Winning the information war requires winning hearts and minds at home, not just outsmarting foreign trolls.
What Taiwan’s Cofacts Can Teach Europe
There is a better way – and one inspiring example comes not from Europe but from Taiwan. Facing a barrage of disinformation (much of it from a hostile Beijing), Taiwanese society responded with a grassroots, transparent fact-checking culture. A standout initiative is Cofacts, an open-source, collaborative platform launched in 2017 by civic-minded developers, journalists, and volunteers. Cofacts acts like a Wikipedia for fact-checking rumors: anyone can submit a dubious message they’ve received, and anyone can contribute a fact-checked answer. The entire exchange is public, so users can see how conclusions are reached and even debate the findings. This model bridges the gap between experts and the public in a remarkably interactive way. Cofacts started as a simple Line messaging app bot that people could text for verification, but it quickly grew into a whole community-driven ecosystem. Volunteers and professionals work side by side as doctors, teachers, students, journalists all pitching in to debunk falsehoods. “We’re trying to make it so that normal people from different walks of life… can act as one community working together,” explains one Cofacts co-founder, noting the aim is to “reduce the gap between the general public and reporters.” By design, the platform fosters trust: fact-check replies are written in a friendly, conversational tone rather than in jargon heavy or bureaucratic language. Users who get a debunk can give feedback on whether it was helpful, and that input is visible to all contributors, creating a continuous feedback loop to improve clarity and persuasion. This transparency and interactivity have paid off. Research comparing Cofacts to traditional fact-checking found the crowdsourced answers were just as accurate – and often clearer in their explanations – than the professional ones. More importantly, Cofacts has built a vibrant culture of participation in Taiwan’s information defense. Hundreds of thousands of people use it, and even lawmakers have promoted it as a civic tool. In a society where disinformation once spread unchecked in private chats, citizens now have a stake in the truth-telling process.
Closing the Gap – and Winning the Fight
Europe doesn’t need to copy Taiwan wholesale, but it must learn the core lesson: an engaged public is not a mere beneficiary of anti-disinformation efforts – it is an essential partner. The EU’s current strategy acknowledges this in theory, speaking of empowerment and resilience, but those words need to be put into practice in ways people can genuinely grasp and join. That means demystifying the technical reports and communicating threats in plain language. It means creating channels for citizens to flag suspicious claims and see the results of fact-checks in real time – perhaps through national media, community organizations, or even EU-backed chatbots and forums that invite public queries. It also means embracing a bit of humility: officials and experts should collaborate with ordinary citizens, teachers, retirees, students, who each experience online misinformation in their own way. As the EU’s own advisors have stressed, disinformation is as much a “democratic and public discourse problem” as it is an external security threat. Countering it is not about Brussels delivering edicts from on high; it’s about mobilizing society at every level to build immunity against falsehoods.
The good news is that Europeans are not apathetic – they care deeply about the integrity of their information space and their democracy. But to harness that concern, the EU must bridge the accessibility gap. Imagine EU updates on disinformation that read less like intelligence briefings and more like a conversation with citizens. Imagine that people could interact directly with the NGOs and EU institutions involved in this work and identify threats, and voice their beliefs on how FIMI should be handled. Without the public on board, even the best-intended EU initiatives will fall short of their potential. However with the public the EU can truly mount a whole-of-society defense, one where technical expertise and civic engagement reinforce each other. In the battle against disinformation, Europe’s 445 million citizens are its greatest strength. It’s high time to bring them fully into the fight. By making the fight against FIMI accessible, transparent, and participatory, the EU can not only outsmart foreign manipulators but also strengthen the democratic bond between its institutions and its people. And that, ultimately, is the surest way to keep the information space free and truthful.
