Guntis Ščerbinskis, “Latvijas Avīze”
By infiltrating the communications department of the right-wing populist Sweden Democrats party, Swedish TV4 journalists have uncovered a troll farm used by the party to secretly spread misleading information and propaganda in the public domain. Even the coalition partners supported by the party have been dragged through the mud on social networks.
Suspicions about the Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna or SD) party’s bad practice of using anonymous user accounts controlled by them to communicate on social networks have been floating around for a long time. Journalists from the Swedish TV4 programme Kalla Fakta decided to catch the wrongdoers red-handed.
A closely kept secret
“We have been working on this for about a year,” TV4 reporter Daniel Andersson, who was on a secret mission to infiltrate the party, told Latvijas Avīze. Before that, a thorough research of the topic was carried out, including an analysis of the posts on the microblogging site X (formerly Twitter), as well as information gathered from sources within the party itself.
However, during the initial investigations, journalists were unable to obtain any concrete evidence, nor were they able to obtain it from interviews with people who were exposed as part of the SD troll farm. Therefore, Daniel, together with his colleague Emil Hellerud, decided to try to get a job in the party’s communications department to investigate the issue from the inside.
“For two months I worked as a news reporter for the party’s YouTube channel Riks and for three months as a communicator in the party’s communications department,” says Daniels about infiltrating the SD. As a result, we were able to uncover that Sweden Democrats members were indeed controlling anonymous social network accounts to spread misleading information and attack political rivals.”
Journalists Emil Hellerud (left) and Daniel Andersson infiltrated the Sweden Democrats to investigate the party’s communications.
In his assessment of the findings of the investigation, Andersson says that the biggest surprise was the systematic way in which the political party worked in this direction, as well as its efforts to keep the troll farm secret, so that no one outside the party or within it, not even in the communications department, found out about it.
Staying on track
This is not the first case in Sweden where a party has been caught using anonymous accounts on social networks. “But the difference is that in other cases these were individual moves without the party’s approval. Moreover, political forces have acted accordingly when such facts came to light,” the journalist explains. “In contrast, the SD has consistently lied, denying the use of such anonymous accounts and even saying that it will not deviate from its approach.”
The journalist hopes, however, that the revealing investigation will influence the future communication culture of political parties in Sweden. “If the practice of using anonymous accounts has no consequences for the party and does not lead to regulation in this area, then Parliament will have implicitly given carte blanche to political parties, and other players, to spread misleading information and propaganda without specifying who the senders of these messages are.”
A new standard?
Ola Svenonius, a researcher at the Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI), also concludes in a conversation with Latvijas Avīze: “If other political parties see the SD’s communication strategy as the new standard, it could be the start of a downward spiral in the Swedish political debate in terms of its openness and rationality. That would be very disappointing.”
The researcher specialising in disinformation, psychological influence and hybrid threats, notes that it is particularly worrying that journalists have highlighted the fact that the SD’s trolling targets are mainly minors.
According to Svenonius, this way of pushing party ideas is not a common practice in Sweden today and “politics is a business of trust” remains the guiding principle. This is also evidenced by the reactions of other parties to the SD’s exposed moves.
Although the SD supports the current Swedish government coalition, its covert information operations have been used to smear both political opponents and allies. This has led to a serious debate among the coalition partners.
“SD, on the other hand, continues to play high stakes by announcing that it will delete some social network posts but will continue to use anonymous accounts. Some of these social media accounts spread intolerance and communicate in a very rude tone,” the expert said, adding that this also affects the overall atmosphere on the X, Facebook and TikTok platforms.
Svenonius: “The free formation of opinion is problematic when political players promote their ideas in a hidden way. As in marketing, political parties need to be open about their ideas.”
The FOI researcher also notes that SD leader Jimmie Åkesson has been very aggressive towards journalists, media, researchers and other opinion-makers regarding the TV programme Kalla Fakta exposes. “Åkesson often uses the term “klägg” in this context, which is jargon for garbage or mucous. While the politician’s attacking tone is now associated with a desire to mobilise the electorate for the European Parliament elections, it could also have an impact on the “democratic conversation” in the longer term. It has lowered the bar for what can be said in Swedish politics.”
In Trump’s footsteps
After the SD exposure, the leaders of most other Swedish parties were swearing that they did not have troll farms on the internet and did not do such things on social media. “That might be so. Only conservative populists do that. Basically the Trumpists, because it was Donald Trump who introduced this practice to party work,” comments Sandra Veinberga, a Swedish connoisseur and communications expert. She notes that the SD has publicly apologised for name-calling its partners on social networks, which is also a violation of the political agreement: “This will no longer be the case, the party’s communications department will take courses and they will be taught the rules of communication ethics.”
S. Veinberga also adds: “The snarling, swearing, punishment and attacks of anonymous, offensive troll armies can also be seen in Latvia.” She stresses that trolls’ activities cause a lot of damage to the society’s democratic processes as a whole: “Authorities are being overthrown and smeared with garbage, and the reference points for finding out the truth are disappearing.”
“To allow black PR and trolling is like allowing groups of thugs and gangsters on the streets – in the social domain – to keep order instead of the police,” the expert compares.
“They did not have a troll farm.”
As part of the production of the documentary series Šķelšanās, published earlier this year, the investigative journalism centre Re:Baltica also infiltrated the party to shine a light on its communications campaign. The party in question is Šlesers’ party Latvia First (Latvija pirmajā vietā, LPV).
In one of the episodes of the documentary, Maija Armaņeva, an experienced influencer and assistant deputy of the LPV faction in the Saeima, says: “A person who comes from social networks, likes to share everything. Therefore, I wanted to train all our colleagues, future members, everyone who joined the list, all the office people, how to use social networks in general, how to work with them, how to film yourself, how to talk to the camera.” It is also undeniable that Armaņeva organised several trainings and coaching sessions.
“Only party members and our sympathisers can be involved in the promotion and publicity of the party’s position and values,” Līga Krapāne, a member of the party’s board, explained the LPV’s communication guidelines to Latvijas Avīze. “The use of internet trolls is unacceptable and, in our opinion, destroys the foundations of democratic pluralism.”
“They did not have a troll farm,” confirms Sanita Jemberga, editor of Re:Baltica. “But we did expose the manipulative nature and purpose of the social network messages created by this party, and the way in which the LPV constructs its disinformation.”
Latvijas Avīze also surveyed other Latvian parties represented in the Saeima (see survey). Their representatives confirmed that they do not use trolls in their communications. The parties also try to follow other rules of good behaviour in the virtual environment. Only Laima Melkina of the National Union (Nacionālā apvienība) could not or did not want to comment.
Are Latvian parties trolling on social networks?
l Arno Pjatkins, United List (Apvienotais saraksts): “Although I would not call the situation critical in general, there are cases that are borderline.” Multiple social networking accounts armed with the same messages, coming to the aid of some parties in moments of crisis or spreading texts defaming their opponents, can also be a sign of an organised activity.”
l Aleksejs Rosļikovs, For Stability (Stabilitātei): “Currently, social networks in Latvia are full of fake profiles. And judging by the communication, they are managed by humans, not artificial intelligence. I am not 100% sure, but I tend to think that they are managed by humans – shadow managers who are very close to politics.”
l Līga Krapāne, Latvia First (Latvija pirmajā vietā): “There have been situations where we have suspected the use of trolls. At the same time, we have repeatedly noticed that our accounts, especially on Facebook, are regularly “shadowed”, thereby suppressing the flow of information. We can only guess who is doing this, we have no proof.”
l Anna Ūdre, New Unity (Jaunā Vienotība): “We have encountered organised rude commenting campaigns by other organisations. We have collected this information and passed it on to social network platforms and, in specific cases, to law enforcement and monitoring authorities.”
l Jurģis Kalniņš, The Progressives (Progresīvie): “Most often, it can be observed that relatively formal and polite language and behaviour is maintained through the parties’ centralised accounts. However, the private accounts of politicians and members are used to spread misleading or defamatory information.”
