„Digital platforms make an environment where individuals can be easy influenced. We are all in our own bubbles, which makes us more susceptible to manipulation,” Mikko Salo of Faktabaari told EURACTIV.pl’s fact Talks podcast.
🇫🇮 Disinformation in Finland in brief
Dominant narratives: aimed at eroding support for Ukraine, stigmatising immigrants, undermining NATO’s credibility and discouraging Finns from joining the alliance
Who spreads disinformation: Russia, home populists, China (to a limited extent), influential individuals (like Elon Musk)
Fighting disinformation: journalistic outlets and independent NGOs highlighting false narratives, seeking appropriate business models for public media, making certain that the remaining media outlets uphold adequate diversity, modernising media education and promoting critical thinking, guidance for teachers
Welcome to TruthTalks, a brave fresh podcast series tackling the challenges resulting from fake news and propaganda head-on. Join us for engaging short conversations with experts from all EU associate states and Ukraine as we uncover the fact behind dominant disinformation trends and research the strategies shaping Europe’s fight against manipulation.
In our fresh episode, we’re focusing on Finland in a conversation with Mikko Salo, Founder and Executive manager of Faktabaari, a Finnish fact-checking and digital information literacy service.
Karolina Zbytniewska, EURACTIV.pl: Finland, like its Nordic neighbours, is known for strong media freedom and advanced public trust in journalism—factors that aid build resilience against disinformation. However, no country is entirely immune to the spread of false narratives. Could you shed any light on the dominant disinformation narratives presently circulating in Finland?
Mikko Salo: First of all, as a fact-checker and having studied this issue, I gotta say it’s very hard to differentiate, due to the fact that nobody truly knows precisely what is happening, especially on social media.
However, we have observed patterns aimed at eroding trust, creating confusion in public debate, and, for example, diminishing support for Ukraine—which remains very strong in Finland. any of these efforts can possibly be attributed to Russia. That said, overall, I would say our strategy remains rather united.
When it comes to supporting Ukraine, we effort to realize the Kremlin’s playbook, which seeks to divide public opinion on these topics. However, it is frequently hard to attribute disinformation straight to a abroad country. Sometimes, our own populist forces latch onto delicate issues—such as migration—which can naturally divide the population.
Since Russia’s attack on Ukraine, 1 of the major developments has been Finland’s record-fast application and accession to NATO, following long-term preparations. At that time, we saw any narratives attempting to undermine NATO and question Western unity—whether joining was truly worthwhile. However, I believe we were well-prepared for that and did not fall besides much for specified narratives, which has been a success so far.
That being said, my individual opinion is that Finland has not yet faced a full-scale disinformation attack. Unfortunately, another European countries—particularly those with a more susceptible historical relation with Russia—are more exposed. However, Finland remains comparatively united in this regard.
Many follow-up questions arise from your answer to my first question. You mentioned that the major goal of possible external actors spreading or backing disinformation is to divide society. Am I right? Do you see any another objectives or eventual goals behind these divisions?
Yes, I think polarisation—exploiting societal cleavages, peculiarly in home politics—is a key strategy. In abroad policy, Finland remains very united, but these interior divisions can inactive service the interests of 3rd countries. They can besides align with interior political objectives.
Right now, maintaining European unity is critically important, so we sometimes see narratives attempting to undermine the EU’s capacity to stand together. There are efforts to sow distrust in the European approach to tackling disinformation, for example. However, I am not certain if this has been peculiarly systematic in Finland to the degree that we could pinpoint it as the number 1 issue.
The online sphere is highly complex, but thankfully, we inactive have strong journalistic media and a comparatively advanced level of media literacy. This resilience, along with widespread unity on Ukraine, has so far prevented major issues in that regard. Of course, the developments in Ukraine have not unfolded as we had hoped, so the focus now is shifting toward what the future will bring.
That said, I believe Finland remains rather analytical and powerfully united, peculiarly in abroad policy.
You mentioned that 1 of the narratives—or possibly goals—of the disinformation was to diminish the importance of NATO. In 2019, Emmanuel Macron called NATO „brain dead.” Could specified statements besides be categorised as part of the same narrative, blurring the line between explanation and disinformation?
I think that’s a fair question. NATO is an intergovernmental organization, and its ability to function has been debated—especially now, with Trump returning to the political stage.
Finland is simply a comparatively fresh NATO member, though it has been part of the EU for a long time. The national debate on what NATO membership truly means is inactive ongoing. So, different interpretations are natural and fair. However, any narratives we’ve observed seem to go beyond genuine debate and could be seen as attempts to ridicule efforts that have, so far, been mostly successful.
Going back to the major players, you specifically mentioned Russia. But are there another actors involved? In many countries, politicians—especially local politicians—are the ones who actually construct and spread fresh disinformation narratives. What is the situation in Finland?
Certainly, there are tensions in home politics, and disinformation plays a function in that landscape. We do see home sources of disinformation, though identifying them is frequently more difficult. So far, we haven’t uncovered systematic manipulation efforts in Finland on the scale of Russian troll farms, for example.
That said, this is precisely where journalistic media and independent NGOs play a crucial function in bringing specified issues to light. During the European elections, for instance, our Nordic partners uncovered a crucial case—the Sweden Democrats operating a troll mill within their own country. They utilized systematic and manipulative tactics akin to those employed by Russian troll operations to advance their political goals.
It’s besides crucial to remember that not all disinformation originates from abroad. A peculiarly concerning development—now widely debated—is the increasing influence of digital power. Elon Musk has become something of a symbol of this, demonstrating how a billionaire with close political ties can supply a platform for an full ideological movement.
This is incredibly serious. In fact, it has arguably overshadowed another concerning phenomena. erstwhile 1 individual can dictate a version of „freedom of speech” that deviates importantly from the European approach, it creates a space where polarizing content and hatred speech thrive—polluting the full information ecosystem. The result? Sensible voices leave these platforms, making the situation even more dangerous.
This is an increasingly systemic issue, and at this moment, I believe it poses an even greater threat to our information landscape.
So are we inactive talking about disinformation, or is this something even bigger?
Yes, this goes beyond disinformation. What we’re seeing now is an full ecosystem that makes platforms much more prone to spreading polarizing, emotionally charged content. This environment inherently benefits disinformation, but the issue itself is more systemic.
If I were, let’s say, (Russian president Vladimir) Putin, I would absolutely search to exploit these platforms—leveraging hatred speech and polarisation to instill fear and unease. In the Nordic countries, public trust and social cohesion are crucial. If those foundations erode, it weakens society. Fortunately, counter-movements inactive exist, but this phenomenon is undoubtedly part of the larger picture.
You mentioned that the actors behind disinformation—those initiating and spreading it—are frequently hard to identify. At the same time, we’ve discussed Russia and local politicians. Are there any another key actors active in disinformation in Finland?
The Russian disinformation playbook is well-documented across Europe. It follows a classical „divide and rule” strategy—turning narratives upside down and exploiting the inherent vulnerabilities of democratic systems. Democracies are complex, which makes them peculiarly susceptible to specified tactics.
Thanks to extended research, we’ve been able to map certain recurring narratives across borders. However, erstwhile it comes to systematic influence by another actors, we haven’t identified anything in Finland that compares in scale.
There has been any discussion about China, but for Finland, it’s not as pressing. Unlike Russia, with whom we share a 1,340-kilometer border, China remains a more distant influence—though, of course, it is present in broader geopolitical debates.
More recently, we’re seeing the influence of Trumpian tactics spreading, peculiarly through far-right actors who adopt akin strategies. This approach is powerful due to the fact that it taps into fears, prejudices, and polarization. However, pinpointing precisely who is behind specified efforts remains challenging.
That’s why this phenomenon is so widespread—it’s hard to track down its origins.
Exactly. And 1 of the biggest challenges is that social media platforms—though I hesitate to even call them “social” anymore—are designed to amplify emotions. This leaves small space for fact-based public debate.
Fact-checking remains vital, but these platforms are easy hijacked by manipulative content, which then dominates discussions. average voices, which are inactive the majority, tend to withdraw, leaving the impression that utmost narratives are mainstream. This is incredibly dangerous.
You have said that disinformation in Finland frequently relates to Ukraine and aims to reduce public support for it.
Yes, that has been a dominant subject since 2022. However, in Finland, attempts to weaken support for Ukraine have mostly failed. The country remains rather united on this issue—during the fresh presidential elections, all candidates, regardless of party, shared a akin stance.
Instead, disinformation efforts have shifted towards exploiting another delicate issues. The economy is struggling, people are facing regular challenges, and uncertainty is growing. This creates an beginning to push narratives that scapegoat certain groups—such as migrants. Ironically, Finland actually needs more migration, yet it has become a contentious political topic.
These emotionally charged debates service a larger agenda: undermining social cohesion and diverting attention from the bigger picture—such as the state of democracy and Ukraine’s function in defending shared European values. This is why I see disinformation as just 1 tool within a broader manipulative strategy.
At Faktabaari, we focus on media literacy and pre-bunking alternatively than just fact-checking. The goal is to „inoculate” people against manipulation before it takes hold. Digital platforms make an environment where individuals can be easy influenced, and we’ve lost any of the shared experiences that erstwhile helped us process information together—like discussing the news as a household in front of the TV. Now, we’re all in our own bubbles, making us more susceptible to manipulation.
Although Noam Chomsky argued that the conventional kind of media consumption—where the full household watched the same tv program—was besides a form of manipulation. Now we have the freedom of choice—or at least we like to believe we do.
Exactly. But in reality, we don’t full realize what others are thinking. This creates fresh challenges. I don’t feel nostalgic for the past, but we gotta adapt to these fresh realities. Our brains are constantly bombarded with information, and this overload contributes to uncertainty, which is already a defining feature of the modern world. This makes people peculiarly susceptible to certain narratives.
Disinformation is just 1 tool in a broader cognitive warfare strategy. It’s a powerful tool erstwhile people buy into the narrative, which is why Faktabaari focuses on media literacy and pre-bunking. We must build resilience against these manipulative tactics, especially in the digital space, where the absence of shared experiences—like families watching the news together—leaves us more susceptible to influence.
What are the most widespread fake news narratives presently circulating in Finland? In Poland, we see claims like „global warming is simply a hoax,” „the EU will force us to eat worms,” or „the EU promotes the sexualization of children.” These narratives are common in far-right circles. Do you see akin trends in Finland?
To be honest, I don’t know for sure, and I wonder if anyone truly does. Identifying these narratives requires circumstantial tools for monitoring social media. Within our collaborative networks—including partners in Poland and another EU associate states—we’ve spotted any of these stories. However, I wouldn’t say they dominate the discourse in Finland.
These narratives exist, but their actual impact is unclear. They primarily circulate on social media, but fortunately, trust in social media remains comparatively low in Finland. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, many people returned to legacy media, even though it requires a subscription. They sought more reliable, fact-checked news due to the fact that social media had become besides chaotic.
Regarding climate change denial, there are very fewer outright skeptics in Finnish politics. The debate is more about pragmatism—how much Finland should lead the way in tackling climate change. Finland has historically been proactive on this issue, but given current economical concerns, any prioritize short-term problems over long-term environmental goals.
The real challenge is that we deficiency the tools to full grasp what’s happening online. The only entities with this cognition are the platforms themselves, and they have small incentive to share it. That’s why it’s crucial for the EU to keep pressuring them to guarantee greater transparency.
How would you specify the unique characteristics of the disinformation scenery in Finland?
As I mentioned earlier, Finland has been proactive in addressing Russian influence operations for a long time. This has helped strengthen resilience, and there’s a advanced level of societal unity on this issue.
Finland, like another Nordic countries, is inactive mostly a trust-based society. This allows for methods of countering disinformation that may not work in more polarised nations. However, any narratives effort to undermine this trust by attacking national cohesion and institutions.
Maintaining a minimum level of social cohesion and trust in institutions is crucial. This requires ensuring that institutions proceed to evolve and stay credible in a rapidly changing world. This challenge is not unique to Finland—it’s a broader issue at the EU level as well. The core values and institutions of the EU are under pressure, and their ability to adapt will find their resilience against disinformation and polarisation.
I realize that Finland has been proactive in addressing disinformation through initiatives like media literacy programs, including efforts from your organization, Faktabari. But in your view, what more could be done?
Finland is frequently cited as a leader, especially for its tradition of media literacy and its comparatively strong education system. On a European scale, I would say that’s true—there’s a solid foundation. However, things are changing rapidly, and even institutions like public broadcasters, which stay the most trusted media outlets in Finland, are facing challenges. This is not the case everywhere, especially in countries with weaker media welfare systems, but even in Finland, specified institutions are under pressure.
The key issue here is how we renew and adapt these institutions to the changing media landscape. How can they find sustainable business models, peculiarly if government backing isn’t always available? That’s been the case for many media organizations. The challenge is besides about ensuring that the remaining journalistic outlets keep adequate diversity to reflect the broad spectrum of views, so people feel adequately represented.
One of the areas we are focusing on is modernising media education to address current challenges, including social media and the emergence of generative AI—tools that are now in our hands, on our mobile devices. How do we proceed to advance critical reasoning and curiosity, while helping people navigate these powerful, yet possibly dangerous, technologies?
Generative AI, for example, is simply a peculiarly alarming tool. We late published a guide for teachers, recognizing that this is the next phase in the evolution of disinformation. AI can make completely false content in seconds, flooding the information space with misinformation. At the same time, it can be utilized to aid people realize and coach themselves. Our aim is to stay ahead of the curve, preparing people to usage AI responsibly. We’re working on how to teach different age groups erstwhile and how to usage generative AI and what to avoid.
In terms of organization reform, we’re focusing on future-proofing, ensuring our educational systems and media institutions can adapt to these changes. While we wait for the EU’s response—such as the regulatory framework presently in development—national solutions frequently deficiency credibility or are insufficient on their own. The challenges we face are shared across many European countries, and a combination of local, national, and European-level strategies will be essential to tackle them effectively.
You can learn more about the disinformation scenery in Finland here.
