(47) Four evolving thoughts
By Onno Hansen-Staszyński | Last Updated: 10 May 2025
Reviewing my previous blog posts, I’ve noticed that certain thoughts consistently return. Together, they capture the unique selling points of the approach I propose in the blog posts thus far.
1. Citizens first
At the heart of my blog posts lies a simple conviction: citizens are not a problem to be managed. Their opinions, questions, and freedoms are not risks to be contained but assets to be respected. That means resisting paternalistic reflexes: treating people not as vulnerable audiences in need of protection, but as thinking individuals capable of engaging with complex realities. Multi-perspectivity and inclusivity should not be buzzwords; they are fundamental.
2. Focus on causes, not just symptoms
Too often, responses to misinformation and polarisation focus almost exclusively on the “supply side”: bad actors, false narratives, platform policies. But without understanding and addressing the “demand side”, why people feel drawn to distorted stories or tribal identities, we’re unlikely to achieve lasting change. My blog posts take psychosocial needs seriously. Rather than chasing each new threat, I propose to focus on the conditions that make those threats potentially persuasive in the first place.
3. Non-partisan by design
My blog posts deliberately avoid rooting themselves in any ideological camp. That’s not because I do not entertain opinions, but because, in my view, they should remain clearly distinct from facts. Being opinion-agnostic and fact-informed allows for credible inclusive participation, especially in settings where trust is fragile and worldviews differ. Upholding the “is/ought” distinction is not a philosophical luxury, it’s a practical tool for bridging divides.
4. Concrete pilots, not symbolic statements
My blog posts try to avoid abstract declarations or symbolic tech-legal fixes. Instead, they explore concrete practices that can make a real difference.
Participation is treated as a pilot strategy for societal change, not a procedural checkbox. Resilience is defined as experiences of autonomy, belonging, achievement, and safety, thereby opening the door to concretely defining what we should protect and support. Also proposed is an ethical scale, from radical empathy (Levinas) to radical tribalism (Hobbes), to map the moral assumptions behind different approaches to deal with FIMI, leading to a clear boundary: at the Levinasian side of the scale, AI should be used only in the service of “fact-speak” input and output. Finally, I follow a basics-first logic: Interdemocracy comes before any attempt to “educate” citizens. Only once people feel safe and heard does focusing on civic skills or media literacy make sense.
Subscribe now &
Get the latest updates
Subscribe