Soft Regulation vs. Hard Manipulative Technologies – Conceptual Foundations in Informational Governance
Keywords:
Soft regulation; information security; disinformation; political culture; censorship; media literacy; democratic governance; hard regulation; digital authoritarianism; public trust.Abstract
In the digital era, public stability is increasingly linked to the integrity and governance of the information environment. This article examines the dichotomy between “hard” manipulative technologies—such as censorship, surveillance, and disinformation—and “soft” regulation based on media literacy, transparency, and self-regulation. While hard methods may provide immediate control, they risk undermining public trust and democratic values. By contrast, soft regulation seeks to build resilient societies by empowering citizens to critically engage with information and resist manipulative content. Through a political-cultural and ideological lens, the article argues that soft informational governance not only enhances information security but also reinforces democratic legitimacy and pluralism.
References
United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 76/227: Countering Disinformation for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 24 December 2021. United Nations, New York.(noting the need for multi-stakeholder, human-rights-compliant responses to disinformation) - URL: documents.un.org.
UNESCO. “Online Disinformation: UNESCO Unveils Action Plan to Regulate Social Media Platforms.”Press Release, 6 November 2023. (UNESCO Director-General’s remarks on balancing regulation with freedom of expression) - URL: unesco.orgunesco.org.
UNESCO. Media and Information Literacy: First Line of Defence against Disinformation. (2020 Launch Event Summary) – Quote by Ramon Tuazon (UNESCO) on MIL empowering individuals as critical users/producers- URL: unesco.org.
OSCE. The Online Media Self-Regulation Guidebook. (2013). (Definition of “soft law” in internet governance and its purpose of enabling free development of the internet while avoiding censorship or chaos) - URL: osce.orgosce.org.
OSCE. Joint Opinion on the Draft Information Code of Uzbekistan. (2023). (Highlights that Uzbekistan’s draft media code includes positive principles like banning censorship and upholding the right to information, aligning with soft regulation ideals) - URL: osce.org.
Freedom House. “The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism – Freedom on the Net 2018.” (Describes China’s export of its censorship model and examples of countries improving freedom by softening controls) - URL: freedomhouse.orgfreedomhouse.org.
Lindley-French, J. “The Revolution in Security Affairs: Hard and Soft Security Dynamics in the 21st Century.” European Security 13(1), 2004. (Discusses conceptual divide between hard vs. soft security approaches; by analogy relevant to info stability).
Freedom House. Freedom on the Net 2022: Uzbekistan. (Country report noting the slight opening of Uzbekistan’s online environment after 2016 reduced self-censorship, though challenges remain) - URL: freedomhouse.org.
National Endowment for Democracy (NED). “Challenging Authoritarian Censorship and Protecting Free Speech.” (Highlights importance of independent media and multi-stakeholder support to strengthen democratic information ecosystems) - URL: ned.orgned.org.
Staender, A. & Humprecht, E. “Beyond online disinformation: assessing national information resilience in four European countries.” Humanities & Social Sciences Communications 10, 2023. (Defines “information resilience” as society’s ability to maintain trust through strong institutions and media literacy) - URL: nature.com.
