Alain Berset, Secretary General of the Council of Europe welcomed participants and made an opening address.

He said, 'To me, protecting democracy means being able to look my children in the eye — and all of you — and say: I did not stay silent'.

Read the full speech 

Alain Berset is the 15^th Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The Secretary General has the overall responsibility for the strategic management of the Organisation. Mr Berset was elected in June 2024. 

Alain Berset biography 

More about Secretary General Alain Berset

Theodoros Rousopoulos, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
‘Do not be observers lost in the digital sphere’

“We are surrounded by more words, more images, more opinions than ever before, and yet we are not necessarily better informed,” said PACE President Theodoros Rousopoulos, speaking today at the opening of the Hackathon, an event organised by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, whose objective is to co-design practical solutions that counter disinformation, protect free speech, and strengthen democratic resilience in a rapidly evolving digital landscape.

“More content does not equal more clarity. More sources do not equal more truth, especially when digital media simply reproduce each other,” he continued. In this context, he advocated “media literacy, not just media fluency; curiosity, not just connectivity; journalism, not just influencers; and debate, not just comment sections” and encouraged participants not to be “observers lost in the digital sphere”.

President Rousopoulos recalled that the Council of Europe has already adopted the first global Convention on Artificial Intelligence, grounded in human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. “It is now up to our member states to give it life, to create the mechanisms that will monitor how AI is used, and more importantly, how it may be misused to threaten the democratic fabric.”

Participants include youth activists, civil society leaders, tech developers, policymakers, diplomats, legal experts, economists, scientists, philosophers, social entrepreneurs, psychologists and artists. The Hackathon, organised as part of the New Democratic Pact for Europe, will feature in particular dynamic team challenges and plenary debates.

Danela Arsovska, Mayor of Skopje, Member of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, Spokesperson on Ethics and prevention of corruption

Gill Phillips, Co-editor of McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists

"Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr Secretary General Berset, thank you for inviting me to speak at this important Programme of the Hackathon and the democratic debates. 

Mr Berset, Ms Arsovska, and Mr Rousopoulos, thank you for sharing your interesting and informative views on this issue. 

I want to emphasize the importance of the two messages of the event: Outsmarting Disinformation and Protecting Free Speech. 

These are twins that balance each other. Too much disinformation threatens democracy, as does too little free speech. It is crucial for democracy and public participation that deceptive information is exposed and sources that manipulate the information environment are closed down.

There can be no doubt about the threat that disinformation can cause. In England, last July, we experienced riots after disinformation about the racial and ethnic origins of the perpetrator of a horrendous attack on children at a dance class was spread on social media. The spread of this disinformation was partly due to a lack of official information about the perpetrator.  There was what could be called an information vacuum which allowed the false information to spread

We must be careful - and I hope the interpreters are able to translate this English phrase adequately for you all - not to throw the baby out with the bathwater when managing disinformation. 

Quality news and journalism must be protected, and critical voices - voices that may disagree with the politicians or powerful in their country for example - should not be unfairly labelled as disinformation.

A classic illustration of the difficulties in this area is the iconic war image of the nine-year-old girl running naked on a road after being severely burned by a South Vietnamese Air Force attack. In 2016, Facebook censored the image but later allowed users to share it after CEO Mark Zuckerberg intervened. Nuances and context are key but hard to judge without human assessment.

Disinformation is a relatively new word. It is apparently (I am no linguist) a translation of the Russian word dezinformátsiya, based on the French désinformer. In English, the use of the prefix dis- indicates a reversal or negative instance of the word that follows. Disinformation, then, can be understood as “reverse information” or “anti-information” specifically created to deceive and misguide other people.

Both misinformation and disinformation are unwelcome, but the latter is done with intent, which can be very hard to pin down and prove.

Overcontrol of disinformation risks censoring free speech, which would stifle discussion. 

News shapes our views, opinions and attitudes, so it is important that people trust what they read. 

With more people using social media as a news source, misinformation and disinformation have become growing problems, especially in the online space.

Recent research by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found that social media has overtaken television as the most used news source in the US. Some 54% of Americans get their news from social media, favouring YouTubers, TikTokers, and podcasters. This trend is likely similar in Europe and elsewhere. While a plurality of information sources is important, it becomes problematic when people trust unreliable media sources that influence their worldview. So, another challenge is how we flag or allow to rise to the top, content that is accurate and verified. 

The challenge with disinformation is how to restrict it without becoming unduly censorious. It’s can’t simply be reduced to what is harmful.

Even legal speech can cause harm, which is not easy to define. 
In many legal and philosophical frameworks, the right to freedom of expression is recognised, even if that expression causes harm or offence. 
The European Court of Human Rights in Handyside v. United Kingdom (1976) clarified that freedom of expression as protected by Art 10, applies only to information and ideas that are favourably received but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb. 

The UK's Online Safety Act requires websites to protect children from exposure to harmful but legal content, content that - for an adult - is legitimate, lawful content - but which for a child audience, is considered harmful - suicide, self-harm, adult pornography etc. 

But law alone cannot achieve the right balance. As Jonathan Swift said, “Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies but let wasps and hornets break through.” While the law is not perfect for judging when information should be removed, it does allow reasoned decisions, is transparent and takes account of nuance and context. 
In many countries courts and legislators have accepted the appropriateness of a notice and take down type approach to posting on social media sites. The only exception to this sort of approach has been in the realm of hate speech, which is considered to be per se illegal and so should not be published in the first place. But ever there – see for example the Netzlaw in German – a staggered notice and take down approach has been considered appropriate. However, such a system relies upon people obeying and being within the reach of the law. 
Regulation can sometime help here. But here too there is a danger – whose regulation are we talking about. Platforms have their own terms and conditions but are abandoning human intervention and relying on technology to police content. AI tools delete prohibited content, but we must be wary of censorship by machine. Automated rules without subjective judgment can lead to the removal of non-false information. Platforms tend to err on the side of removal, with little incentive to reinstate content. Routes to challenge and review are generally non-existent or opaque.
As with the example of the naked napalm girl, this can result in the removal of what I will simplistically call “good” content. 
The danger with a regulatory approach is the assumption that misinformation or disinformation can be easily identified, with no room for legitimate differences in opinion. Distinguishing truth from falsehood is not simple. 

Technology can help locate false information and provide access to fact-checking solutions, it  can help to question the reliability of the source by finding more reliable sources so as to provide a more diverse range of perspectives on the story, but it often doesn’t show its workings. We don’t know who or how it has been determined that content is false, posing a threat to democracy.

What is needed is a mixture of law, regulation, technology, as well as education, and media literacy, which offers a critical alternative and complementary approach, to combat false information online. We need to educate the public about the threats disinformation poses to society. 
So, there you have it. I have outlined all the difficulties and problems that you face here!! I hope that you come up with some excellent solutions and ideas to this challenging problem. Good luck. "
 

Team 1: Danatara - Italy

Team 2: TRUSTR - Norway

Team 3: Radr - Moldova

Team 4: EchoBreaker - Georgia

Team 5: Gecko - Montenegro

Team 6: France & Portugal ftw - France and Portugal

Team 7: META NGO - Moldova

Team 8: Sunflower - Italy

Team 9: The Fact-Checking Foxes - Serbia

Team 10: DisXposia - Albania

Team 11: Democracy Defender - Italy

Meet the mentors 

The Big Challenge: Protect Democracy in the Digital Age

Online disinformation has become a digital epidemic, undermining trust, polarising societies, and distorting elections.

At the Council of Europe Hackathon, teams are tasked with co-creating bold, human rights-grounded solutions that align with the Reykjavík Principles for Democracy, safeguard free speech, and strengthen democratic resilience.

Core Objectives

Participants are invited to tackle major challenges:

• Expose hidden disinformation networks – detect bot farms, fake accounts, and coordinated campaigns driving manipulation.
• Increase algorithmic transparency – clarify how content is ranked, moderated, and promoted by platforms.
• Boost access to reliable, pluralistic information – disrupt echo chambers by elevating trustworthy voices and sources.
• Empower citizens with critical thinking skills – build tools and educational campaigns to foster digital literacy, media resilience, and civically engaged dialogue.

Why It Matters

This hackathon is a democracy innovation incubator, combining technical and narrative-driven solutions—from AI tools to participatory campaigns—designed to be functional prototypes that can scale across Europe.

A Values-Driven Mission

This isn’t just about technology. It’s about operationalising human rights in the digital age, embedding democratic values into real-world solutions.

Each proposal must be:

• Impactful and scalable across diverse contexts.
• Aligned with European Convention on Human Rights obligations.
• Multidisciplinary and inclusive, combining perspectives from youth, civil society, tech, policymakers, educators, media, and the arts.

Connect & Collaborate

The Hackathon brings together innovators, activists, policymakers, creatives, and youth for a full day of dynamic collaboration—blending hack sessions, peer mentoring, and plenary debates under the New Democratic Pact for Europe.

Outcomes

More than prototypes, the hackathon aims to generate informed contributions to the New Democratic Pact, helping shape Europe’s collective response to disinformation and the future of democracy.

A Moment of Grace and Rhythm

At the heart of the Hackathon, three talented female dancers from the London Adavu ensemble brought a powerful interlude of rhythm, tradition, and expression. Performing in full costume, their Bharatanatyam piece blended classical precision with contemporary relevance—offering a moment of reflection on balance, truth, and beauty amid a day of democratic innovation.

• Zita Gurmai, Member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
• Jelle Postma, Chief Executive Officer, Justice for Prosperity
• Maja Zaric, Chair of the Steering Committee on Media and Information Society- CDMSI

In a gripping and, at times, unsettling discussion, the panel exposed how disinformation is increasingly being weaponised to undermine democratic institutions, target vulnerable groups, and manipulate public opinion.

Speakers urged a shift in narrative: we must put our hearts into protecting democracy and defending women in public life, who are often the first targets of digital hostility. They called for gender-sensitive digital governance and meaningful support structures for women policymakers, grounded in a clear framework for action.

A stark warning was delivered: the greatest threat doesn’t lie in social media’s “useful idiots,” but in the fire starters—those with money, power, and strategic intent. Oligarchs, ultraconservative networks, and industry actors exploit fear-based narratives (like “demographic decline”) to divide societies and weaken democracies. This is not simply about culture wars—it’s an orchestrated attack on democratic cohesion, often carried out by actors both outside and within the EU and US.

Examples included how European ultraconservative groups are exporting anti-democratic strategies to Sub-Saharan Africa, training local partners to push laws that restrict rights—particularly for women and LGBTQ+ people. These campaigns, while not always aimed at erasing minorities, are designed to fracture democracy by targeting its moral core.

The role of the Council of Europe was highlighted, particularly in building high-level standards to counter disinformation and hate. But these standards must be vigorously translated into national action. It is essential not to normalise online abuse or hostile narratives. Democracy must feel like freedom—and that includes how institutions, platforms, and leaders communicate.

A key message echoed throughout: media literacy alone is not enough. Public institutions and international organisations must investigate the source actors behind disinformation, not just react to its surface effects. It matters who is behind the message—not just what it says.

Audience voices raised a timely warning against binary thinking: we must move beyond false dilemmas and expose the full machinery of manipulation. As one panellist put it, “We’re rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.” Solutions must go beyond reports—they must reach schools, communities, and digital cultures, where the harm is already happening.

Importantly, the panel stressed that democracy itself needs to be rebranded. In terms of communication, our values and standards must be translated into messages that are simple, human, and emotionally resonant. Even the most complex issues need to be explained in a way that connects—especially with younger generations navigating a noisy, fragmented information landscape.

The session concluded with a reminder: democracy is delicate, human, and complex. If our message fails to land, the failure is ours. We must work harder—not just to speak, but to truly connect.

• Antoine Bernard, Director for Advocacy, Reporters without borders
• Iva Nenadić, Assistant Professor at the University of Dubrovnik’s Faculty of Media and Public Relations and ScientificCoordinator of the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom
• Gobnait Ni Mhuimneacain, Member of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe
• George Papandreou, Member of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, General Rapporteur on Democracy
  Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy

This second democratic debate offered a sweeping and at times urgent analysis of the fragility of electoral processes in today’s disinformation-saturated world. The discussion underscored that to preserve democracy, well-informed, conscientious citizens are essential—particularly in how they engage online.

Participants explored how the information environment has fundamentally shifted. Once dominated by traditional media, which played a central role in informing society and shaping public views, the ecosystem has now been overtaken by powerful online platforms. These new actors, often more influential than any traditional media in history, have profoundly changed how information is created, shared, and consumed—without the journalistic standards that once anchored public trust.

While this democratisation of access to information holds potential, it also poses serious dangers. Algorithms often privilege harmful, divisive content designed to maximise engagement, rather than inform. The result is an ecosystem that magnifies disinformation, erodes trust in institutions, and threatens social cohesion—especially around elections, where the stakes are highest.

Speakers stressed that democracy demands more than free speech—it requires access to accurate, reliable information, a right that remains unevenly protected across Europe. The debate called for a new convention on the right to information, potentially under the leadership of the Council of Europe, along with the creation of a multi-stakeholder mechanism to monitor compliance among member states.

The press and media, once the backbone of electoral coverage, are now facing existential threats. From financial collapse to political harassment—including SLAPP lawsuits and abusive regulations—journalists are increasingly targeted by both hostile foreign actors and domestic politicians. In response, the Council of Europe has championed anti-SLAPP protections, but panellists urged further action. “We don’t need more regulation—we need better regulation,” one speaker noted.

International efforts to support a human rights-compliant information ecosystem must go beyond principles—they must be implemented in practice. Ethics and high standards cannot be left to voluntary adoption by tech companies. Without action to counter harmful business models, democracy risks being subverted by autocrats and opportunists.

There was consensus that media literacy and fact-checking, while necessary, are insufficient. Disinformation spreads faster than corrections can keep up. What’s needed is greater transparency in algorithmic systems, and shared standards to prevent the manipulation of public debate by actors with no accountability.

Despite the challenges, the debate also spotlighted positive forces. Many young people are mobilising their peers in defence of democracy. Yet the same tools used for empowerment can also be used for manipulation. We must better understand who is informing us, who is influencing narratives, and why some communities are more vulnerable or resilient than others.

Importantly, the Council of Europe was called upon to be at the forefront of innovation. Not just to protect freedom of expression and support journalists, but to take initiative: launch conventions, coordinate states, and create real-time responses to the evolving information landscape. Its existing standards are strong, but the urgent task is to operationalise human rights in the digital age—bridging the generational gap, anticipating future risks, and building a positive agenda for democracy that goes beyond restriction to foster trust, creativity, and civic resilience.

In closing, the panel returned to a fundamental question: If we no longer share a common information space, can democracy truly function? The answer lies in building it—deliberately, transparently, and together.  

• Denise Bertchi, artist and post-doctoral researcher, Collegium Helveticum, ETH Zürich
• Philippe Bischof, Strategic consultant in cultural policy and management; Director of the Swiss Arts Council Pro Helvetia from 2017-June 2025
• Inês Fialho-Brandão, Head of Cultural and Digital Mediation at the Calouste Gulbenkian Museum in Lisbon

Culture and the Arts: A Democratic Force Against Disinformation

Is culture political? Not always explicitly—but always in impact. Across the debate, it became clear that culture and the arts are not peripheral to democracy—they are a core part of its fabric. They offer space for critical reflection, dialogue, imagination, and plurality—precisely what disinformation aims to erode.

Key takeaways include:

• Culture as a training ground for democracy: Through disagreement, interpretation, and empathy, the arts help us “agree to disagree,” fostering the mindset necessary for pluralism. Galleries, museums, and theatres become spaces where difference is encountered and accepted.
• Freedom of artistic direction must be defended. Cultural expression must be free from political instrumentalisation. As one speaker noted, “culture should be political, but not politicised.” Its power lies in its independence.
• Cultural institutions as safe spaces for truth and skills-building: From major national museums to local initiatives like Pinocchio in Schools in Portugal, institutions can build critical thinking, information triage, and media literacy—especially among youth—through slow, participatory, trust-based engagement.
• “Contrats de résonance” as a model for cultural partnerships: A new model of collaboration between the state and cultural institutions based on context, co-creation, and dialogue, rather than top-down programming. Resonance here means listening, responsiveness, and authentic exchange.
• Transparency in cultural policy is urgent. Cultural soft power is real—and sometimes abused. Participants called for cultural policies to be public and accountable, citing past examples of strategic manipulation of cultural diplomacy.
• Arts can illuminate forgotten histories and silenced voices. They hold the power to reconnect us with contested narratives—colonial pasts, marginalised communities, and stories excluded from official memory.
• Culture fights disinformation not with counter-claims but with context, complexity, and emotional connection. It’s uniquely placed to reach those actively drawn to disinformation because it speaks not only to the mind, but to emotion and identity.
• We must invest boldly in culture. That includes large-scale, integrated initiatives—like schools working with local museums on critical history research—as well as everyday support for artistic freedom, diverse programming, and image literacy.

In short: If democracy is to remain resilient, culture must be central, not an afterthought. It is both shield and catalyst—a space to imagine, question, remember, and connect.  

Grace Returns to the Stage

In a second spellbinding appearance, the dancers of the London Adavu ensemble once again invited Hackathon participants into a world where tradition meets purpose. Through the intricate language of Bharatanatyam, they wove movement and meaning into a reflection on resilience, truth, and the human condition—a poignant close to a day devoted to strengthening democracy through creativity and dialogue.

Outcomes from Budapest: Youth Ideas to Outsmart Disinformation

At the European Youth Centre in Budapest, young participants of the Council of Europe Hackathon Satellite Event presented bold, creative solutions to combat disinformation and promote democratic resilience. Their proposals addressed challenges such as health-related misinformation, echo chambers, and media literacy through AI-supported fact-checking tools, dual-perspective news feeds, and verified public health information systems. Rooted in transparency, critical thinking, and user empowerment, these youth-led ideas will inform the Council of Europe’s wider strategy—proving that young voices are not only alert to digital threats, but actively shaping the future of democratic dialogue.

Solutions presented by the youth participants at the Council of Europe Hackathon Satellite Event in Budapest:

• "EchoUnpack" – A digital tool designed to break users out of echo chambers by presenting contrasting perspectives on the same topic in real time, encouraging more balanced and reflective engagement.
• "Verify+ Health" – A mobile app that connects users with verified, multilingual public health information, counters disinformation, and allows real-time reporting of suspicious health claims.
• "FactEcho" – An AI-powered browser extension that detects potentially misleading content in live newsfeeds and offers fact-checked alternatives or contextual information, helping users navigate digital news responsibly.
• "Think Twice" – An awareness campaign and toolkit to be deployed in schools, using gamified learning to boost critical thinking and disinformation detection among teenagers.
• "The Truth Booth" – A physical or virtual installation concept allowing people to anonymously share how disinformation has affected them personally—turning abstract threats into relatable, human stories.