Bonus for good behavior: How badges could make the internet more democratic

In the digital world, platforms are more than just technical service providers. They form the backbone of public communication. However, who is heard there and which topics dominate the debate is often not decided by the quality of an argument. Instead, the logic of the attention economy reigns. Jan Rau, a research associate at the Leibniz Institute for Media Research (Hans-Bredow-Institut), offers a solution in a current discussion paper from the SPD-affiliated Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung: the introduction of platform badges for civil communication.

The current system of social networks primarily rewards what elicits strong reactions: emotions, polarization, and often radicalism. In this competition for clicks and dwell time, factual, civil, and truth-oriented contributions are structurally disadvantaged. With the Digital Services Act (DSA), the EU has obliged very large online platforms (VLOPs) to identify risks to democratic discourse and to take effective countermeasures.

Visibility as a reward for diligence and respect

Rau's concept builds on a "governance-by-design approach" in this environment: The architecture of the platforms themselves should be changed to actively promote democratic behavior. The idea: Users can voluntarily commit to adhering to certain communication norms. Those who commit to diligence in checking information and to balanced principles such as respect, rationality, reciprocity, and constructiveness receive a digital seal of quality.

The key lies in the technical implementation: the badge is not just a symbolic award in the profile but also serves as a signal for the algorithm. According to the social scientist, contributions from badge holders should be placed more prominently in feeds and recommendations, thus receiving greater reach. This will create a structural advantage for civil communication that compensates for the current preference for outrage content, Rau believes. The goal is not uniformity of thought but fair competition of ideas, in which quieter but well-founded voices also have a chance to be heard again.

Freedom of opinion must be preserved

Since the badge system is in principle open to everyone and distinguishes not by political opinion but by the manner of communication, freedom of opinion is preserved, emphasizes Rau. It is not about suppressing political conflict, which is essential for a democracy. A framework should be created that prevents extreme polarization and targeted manipulation from destabilizing the democratic public sphere.

The implementation of such a system involves challenges. These include questions of definition authority: Who decides what counts as "disinformation" or "civil"? This must be clarified through transparent procedures, opportunities for appeal, and independent oversight bodies, writes the author. Furthermore, sanction mechanisms are necessary if users misuse their badge, for example, to spread subtle ideologies with high reach. Rau proposes a tiered system for this, ranging from warnings to the permanent revocation of the seal of quality.

(mho)