Author: Фондација Метаморфозис

On this World Press Freedom Day, the global IFEX network has launched the “Meeting the AI Moment” campaign, spotlighting civil society efforts to counter disinformation in the age of artificial intelligence. The Metamorphosis Foundation is among the featured organisations in the campaign, with its innovative approach to youth engagement and media literacy offering a compelling model for navigating the challenges of AI-powered misinformation.
As AI continues to reshape the global information landscape—bringing both opportunities and threats—civil society organisations like Metamorphosis are stepping up to ensure that press freedom not only survives but evolves. The “Meeting the AI Moment” campaign emphasizes the critical role of such organisations in fostering informed, resilient societies at a time when synthetic media, deepfakes, and AI-generated content are increasingly being weaponized to distort public discourse and undermine trust.
In North Macedonia, where media literacy remains one of the lowest in Europe and disinformation campaigns target everything from public health to elections, Metamorphosis has long been at the forefront of countering harmful narratives. Through a multi-pronged approach that includes media platforms like Meta.mk, fact-checking services such as Truthmeter, and regional cooperation via the Western Balkans Anti-Disinformation Hub, the Foundation has developed a robust toolkit to defend the information space.
A standout initiative featured in the IFEX campaign is Cyber Shakes—a series of youth-focused events launched in 2023 to explore the impact of emerging technologies on information integrity. Held in informal venues such as cafés and nightclubs, Cyber Shakes bring experts and young people together to discuss everything from deepfakes to data privacy, using interactive tools like quizzes and influencer-led promotions to spark meaningful dialogue.
One such event, “Deepfake or Reality,” held in early 2024, offered a dynamic mix of expert panels and live audience engagement. Participants—including journalists, computer science academics, and tech editors—guided young attendees through real and manipulated images, encouraging them to question and analyze visual content in a digital age. The event also opened the floor for young people to voice their growing concerns about AI misuse, including the disturbing rise of sexualized deepfakes and online harassment.
“We didn’t ask them to come to us—we went to them,” said Goran Rizaov, Programme Manager for Information and Media Integrity at Metamorphosis. “The goal was not to lecture, but to create a space where young people could ask questions and share concerns. Many already knew about the risks of AI, but what they lacked was a platform to talk openly and find others who felt the same.”
Feedback from these events is shaping Metamorphosis’s future strategy. Plans are underway for a new series of youth- and elderly-oriented events combining education and entertainment to further unpack complex topics like conspiracy theories, surveillance, and AI ethics. Metamorphosis also remains committed to regional cooperation, continuing to expand its leadership within the Western Balkans Anti-Disinformation Hub.
Crucially, the Foundation maintains a balanced stance on technology. “We emphasize the positive potential of AI when used ethically,” said Rizaov. “Our aim isn’t to scare people—it’s to equip them with the knowledge to use technology wisely, while being aware of the risks.”
Through its contributions to IFEX’s “Meeting the AI Moment” campaign, Metamorphosis Foundation reaffirms its commitment to empowering citizens, especially the youth, with the critical thinking skills and media literacy needed to defend press freedom in an AI-driven world.

This past weekend, the Metamorphosis Foundation actively participated in the preparations for the study session “Open your AIs,” which will be held in June at the European Youth Centre in Strasbourg, under the auspices of the Council of Europe.

This study session is an opportunity for young people to explore key issues related to the ethics and responsible use of artificial intelligence. Through the exchange of ideas, discussions, and practical activities, participants will create tools, strategies, and recommendations that they can directly apply in the work of youth organizations.
The study session is organized within the framework of the Youth for Democracy program in collaboration with Connect International alongside the partner Curiosité – Centre de Formation and supported by the expertise of the Metamorphosis Foundation.

We look forward to welcoming 20 young leaders from across Europe to join us in contributing to the creation of a more inclusive and just digital future, grounded in the protection of human rights.
The call for participation is open until May 9th. More information is available at the following link.

North Macedonia is undergoing reforms to its media legislation, aiming to align with European Union (EU) standards. The Metamorphosis Foundation welcomes the initiative of the Government of Republic of North Macedonia to align national media legislation with European standards, particularly in the context of Chapter 23 of the EU acquis and the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). While the proposed amendments to the Media Law can represent a step in the right direction by extending the regulatory framework to online media, they raise concerns that they only partially address the systemic issues in the media environment and do not sufficiently comply with EMFA provisions. We therefore call for a comprehensive, inclusive reform process aimed at the adoption of a new Media Law that fully reflects European norms and ensures the protection of media freedom, editorial independence, and journalists’ rights.
Moreover, while a whole new Media Law had already been already drafted with the help of experts from the EU during the previous years, for unknown reasons and without providing public explanation, the Government choose to only amend the existing old law addressing only part of the burning issues, instead of proposing the comprehensive new law.
This position paper evaluates the proposed changes, highlighting both advancements and persistent challenges, and offers recommendations to ensure comprehensive media freedom and alignment with EU directives.

Are you working in a youth organisation and interested in the ethical use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools? Do you want to explore how AI impacts youth participation, human rights, and democracy?
Join the “Open your AIs” study session and become part of a community of young changemakers ready to tackle the future of AI with a critical and rights-based approach.
The study session is a space for participants to explore key challenges related to AI, exchange ideas, and co-create practical tools, strategies, or recommendations that can directly support their work in youth organisations. Study session organised within the Youth for Democracy programme in cooperation with Connect International in with partner Curiosite Centre de Formation and expertise of Metamorphosis Foundation.
And we are looking for 20 participants from across Council of Europe member states.
By participating, you will:

Boost your organization’s digital capacity – Learn how to critically assess and responsibly integrate AI tools into your daily work and projects.
Explore the ethical side of AI – Reflect on the benefits, risks, and ethical dilemmas posed by AI and how they affect young people and our societies.
Spark meaningful conversations – Get practical tools and strategies to help bring AI ethics into your programmes and engage young people in shaping their digital future.
Understand the digital policies that matter – Build your knowledge of the EU AI Act, the Council of Europe’s AI Convention, and how youth organisations like yours can be part of shaping inclusive and fair AI governance.

When?
Arrival day 22nd June 2025
Departure day 28th June 2025
Where?
In the facility of the Council of Europe called the European Youth Center Strasbourg in France.
Who?

Are you between 18 and 30 years old?
Member of youth organisation or youth worker?
Are you a resident in one of the Council of Europe member states?
Are you looking forward to learning more about digital and youth policies of the Youth Sector of the Council of Europe?
Do you want to better understand how Artificial Intelligence is shaping the lives of young people?
Are you interested in ethical, human rights-based approaches to technology?

Then, apply for the study session by the 9th of May 2025 through this form.
Cost
Accommodations, meals, visa costs and travel and subsistence costs are covered by the Youth Department of the Council of Europe.
The participants’ contribution will be 50 euros a fee, which they will be asked to transfer via bank transfer to Connect International at least 3 weeks before the beginning of the study session.
Timeline of the application process:
Deadline for application: 9th May 2025
Information about your application status: 15th May 2025
Link to the original call: Call for participants to join our study session “Open your AIs” in Strasbourg | Connect INTERNATIONAL

The Platform of Civil Society Organizations in the Fight against Corruption responds to the recommendations of the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption (SCPC), presented at a public session of the SCPC, and conveyed through media outlets, within the framework of the anti-corruption review of the Law on Free Access to Public Information.
Instead of contributing to greater transparency, accountability, and the fight against corruption, the SCPC, through its alleged indications of “regulatory risks,” sends seriously worrying signals for the closure of institutions and creates opportunities for limiting the public’s right to know. Such recommendations not only undermine the role of the SCPC as a key institution for preventing corruption, but also directly open up space for new corrupt abuses, especially in the area of ​​public procurement.

Reduced transparency–increased risks of corrupt and harmful public procurement

First, the SCPC recommends “reexamining the article regulating the obligation to publish all public procurement documentation. The SCPC believes that the term “all documentation” in relation to public procurement is not precisely defined, which may result in the publication of confidential information and the violation of the rights of third parties.”
The Platform points out that the application of the provision of the Law on Free Access to Public Information, the entire documentation pertaining to public procurements, concessions and public-private partnership agreements, (Article 10, paragraph 1, line 18) has so far enabled increased transparency and access to relevant documents by civil society organizations and media outlets. In this way, abuses committed in a large number of tender procedures for which court proceedings are being conducted were disclosed, but also possible corrupt and harmful public procurements were prevented.
The SCPC should also have taken into account that the protection of confidential data in public procurement is already regulated in the Law on Public Procurement (Article 30). We also point out to the SCPC that the Law on Free Access to Public Information regulates partial access, as well as provides for exceptions in cases where protection of information with a degree of secrecy is required. We remind the SCPC and the public that in January 20205 a regression was already made in the protection against corruption in public procurement with the amendments to the Law on Public Procurement in such a way that the administrative control of public procurement carried out by the Public Procurement Bureau was abolished. In conditions when, according to the assessments of all relevant international and domestic stakeholders, corruption in public procurement is widespread and with the historically highest state budget, new borrowing and daily indications of misuse of public money, the SCPC makes recommendations to limit transparency, thus undermining the role of a key institution for preventing corruption.

Recommendations with long-term negative consequences affecting independence

The SCPC provides guidelines for prescribing and specifying a procedure, as well as setting a deadline for the Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia in cases where it determines the termination of the function and the dismissal of the Director of the Agency for Protection of the Right to Free Access to Public Information and the deputy, before the expiration of the mandate.

For the Platform, this recommendation is politically motivated because it was given immediately after an attempt by MPs in the Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia to adopt amendments to the Law on Free Access to Public Information that envisaged the early dismissal of the Director of the Agency in the event that the parliamentary majority does not adopt the annual work report. And we point out to the SCPC that independent regulatory bodies, such as the Agency for the Protection of the Right to Free Access, and the SCPC itself, have a mandate longer than the mandate of elected officials in the executive branch, in order to ensure independence from parties and political influence. The given recommendation is already regulated in the Law on Free Access to Public Information that in the event of termination of the function or dismissal of the Director of the Agency, until the election of a new Director of the Agency, the function of Director of the Agency is performed by the Deputy Director, with all the authorities that the Director had. So the only argument for this recommendation by the SCPC cannot be “possible procrastination, selectivity, and uncertainty in the management of the institution.”

Proposals to introduce criteria that will reduce existing transparency

The SCPC refers to the obligation of information holders to regularly update a list of information they have and to publicly publish it. The SCPC considers that this provision “does not have precise criteria for which information should be published, nor in what manner and in what format, which leaves wide discretion to the information holders to decide what to publish and how. The SCPC considers that this is a “risk of limited transparency with the possibility of selective publication or concealment of information of public interest.”
The Platform is concerned that the SCPC found a risk of limited transparency in conditions where the Law on Free Access to Public Information establishes the form for publishing information and documents, namely: (a) information is published in any form that was created by or is held by the holder of the information in accordance with their competencies, and (b) access is provided to a document regardless of its physical form or characteristics—written or printed text, maps, diagrams, photographs, images, drawings, sketches, working materials, as well as audio, voice, magnetic or electronic, optical or video recordings in any form, including portable devices for automatic data processing with built-in or portable memories for storing data in digital form (Article 3). Additionally, it is concerning that the SCPC demonstrates a lack of understanding of the matter when it states that “there are no clear criteria for which information must be published.” The Law on Free Access establishes that all information created by and held by institutions, except for the exceptions (Article 6), is public information. It even introduces the concept of “proactive transparency,” which means that certain information must be published without being requested. What kind of criteria the SCPC recommends is unclear, and it is even more concerning that they speak about format without taking into account the announced start of the process for drafting the Law on Open Data and Reuse of Public Sector Information.

Overdue recommendations during an active process for amendments to the Law

The SCPC has determined that there is disproportionate liability for the misdemeanor provisions. Only a 500 euro fine is foreseen for the manager if they fail to appoint an official for information mediation and fail to provide information to the public about that person, but a 250 euro fine is also foreseen for the official for multiple misdemeanors–updating the list of information, assisting applicants, respecting deadlines for responding to requests. The SCPC recommended that the misdemeanor liability between the manager and the official for information in the Agency be clearly demarcated, in accordance with their actual responsibilities.
For the Platform, it is indicative that the SCPC points to alleged “regulatory risks” in the Law on Free Access to Public Information, for which the start of amending the Law was announced 5 months ago, i.e. on November 21, 2024, and public consultations are currently underway through ENER on the proposed amendments. The SCPC pointed to a disproportionality in the responsibility of responsible and official persons, but there are no proposals that specifically recommend it. We point out that civil society has been advocating for the existence of provisions for misdemeanor liability of responsible persons who unreasonably fail to provide access to information or prevent the official from implementing the second-instance decision to provide access to information.
Hence, the Platform believes that proposed solutions that may negatively impact the fight against corruption are unacceptable and contrary to European commitments to democratic, inclusive, and expert public policymaking.
Additionally, the Platform is concerned that the review of the Law on Free Access by the SCPC lacks key aspects of anti-corruption review, such as the involvement of multiple actors, i.e., during the preparation of the Report, they have not ensured cooperation with the civil society that would ensure independence and objectivity in the analysis.
We remind you that the anti-corruption review of (draft) laws is a preventive mechanism aimed at detecting, preventing, and minimizing the risks regarding the possibility of corruption and conflict of interest that may result in the implementation of laws. With such guidelines, the SCPC not only does not advance the system for preventing corruption, but also risks giving legitimacy to policies and practices that lead to the capture of institutions and the inaccessibility of information of public interest, which is currently information of a public nature.
We call on the competent institutions, especially the Ministry of Justice and the Parliament, to take into account the existing legal mechanisms and not give in to guidelines that limit transparency, which is a key tool in the fight against corruption.

Within the framework of the project “Ensuring the Integration of the Western Balkans into the Digital Single Market,” which aims to advance digital rights standards in the Western Balkans region and support its integration into the single digital market, the Metamorphosis Foundation is organizing a training for civil society organizations and media outlets on the topic “Implications of the EU Digital Services Act for Civil Society Organizations and Investigative Journalists in North Macedonia”.
Date: April 24, 2025 (Thursday)
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Location: Metamorphosis (19 Franklin Roosevelt St., 2nd floor – in the Setec building)
Map: https://maps.app.goo.gl/o43Q5Uqpjg1WU1P37
The training will focus on the basics of the EU Digital Services Act and the main principles of transparency, accountability, and user protection, as well as its impact on freedom of expression and digital rights. The training will also present key findings and recommendations from the research on the implications of the EU Digital Services Act on civil society organizations and investigative journalists in Macedonia and the challenges and risks related to digital platforms, trusted flaggers, and algorithmic moderation.
The training is intended for representatives of civil society organizations, media outlets, fact-checkers, investigative journalists, and activists who work on topics related to digital rights, freedom of expression, and media regulation.
The training agenda is available here.
The registration form is available at the following link.
Registration for the training is open until April 16, 2025.
The project “Ensuring the Integration of the Western Balkans into the Digital Single Market” is funded by the Open Society Foundations Western Balkans, and implemented by Partners Serbia (Serbia), Metamorphosis Foundation (North Macedonia), Why Not? (Bosnia and Herzegovina), NGO 35 mm (Montenegro), Women in Tech Kosovo (Kosovo), and the Institute for Democracy and Mediation (Albania).

On April 9, 2025, the Metamorphosis Foundation conducted a one-day training on improved cybersecurity for civil society organizations. A dozen representatives of civil society organizations active in working with vulnerable groups of citizens were introduced to the term digital fingerprint, why antivirus protection is important, what a good password is, how to use a password manager, and numerous practical tips for increasing cybersecurity and practicing cyber hygiene.
The training is part of the project “CyberShield: Empowered Citizens for Cyber ​​Resilience”. Three trainings are planned within the project, as well as podcasts and videos to increase public awareness and understanding of the importance of cybersecurity. The goal of the project is to highlight the issues of proper and regular cyber hygiene and effective handling of cyber threats (phishing, social engineering, malware, online disinformation, personal data theft, etc.) as well as to ensure that these topics receive the necessary attention, resources and joint efforts needed for effective solutions.

The project “CyberShield: Empowered Citizens for Cyber Resilience” is supported by the National Interventions grant for the regional project “SMART Balkans—Civil Society for Shared Society in the Western Balkans” implemented by Centar za promociju civilnog društva (CPCD) (Center for Civil Society Promotion), Center for Research and Policy Making (CRPM) and the Institute for Democracy and Mediation (IDM), and financially supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway.

Fact-checking is essential, but insufficient on its own. A multi-layered approach is needed, one that combines fact-checking and media literacy with cooperation between the media, non-governmental organizations, and government institutions. In other words, a comprehensive, whole-of-society approach to combating disinformation. This was one of the main ideas that emerged during the second part of the conference titled “Together for Truth: Whole-of-Society Approach to Safeguard Democracy,” organized by the Metamorphosis Foundation on the occasion of International Fact-Checking Day.
The session titled “Democracy at Risk: Fact-Checking and Content Moderation on Social Media—Facing Challenges by Creating Enabling Environment” discussed the state of fact-checking in the Western Balkans. Jona Plumbi, from the fact-checking organization Faktoje, noted that Albania is particularly vulnerable to disinformation.
“We are not prepared to combat disinformation. We are trying to prepare for the parliamentary elections in May, but it is not enough. A multifaceted approach to the problem is needed,” Plumbi said.
That is why, as Plumbi noted, Faktoje has started a collaboration with the University of Tirana to integrate media literacy into education, as the level of media literacy is very low. Plumbi also addressed another problem, how to reach an audience that is not interested in accurate information, that is, those who consume short content such as that found on TikTok. “When we wrote long analyses about disinformation regarding migrants in Albania, was anyone interested? No. We reached the most activity on 40-second videos,” Plumbi said.
Maida Ćulahović, from “Why Not” in Bosnia and Herzegovina, followed up with their own experience. Through the fact-checking services “Istinomer” and “Raskrinkavanje”, they tried to address the problem together with the platforms by following the code of practice, but without success:
“Without clear legislation, the platforms will do nothing, i.e. they will not voluntarily implement measures to address disinformation. During the last elections, we tried to work with the platforms for posts and content that violate the code of conduct [of Meta’s platforms], illegal content or one that contradicts the electoral code, and there was very little responsiveness. Out of 119 reported content, we received a response for only 25 of them. And only 3 were removed, but only after we appealed the initial decision,” shared Ćulahović.
Nacho Strigulev, from Blue Link, Bulgaria, followed up on the same topic, saying that we cannot rely on platforms to defend the information space, because they are, at the end of the day, profit-oriented companies:
“Platforms have no problem transforming themselves into weapons against democracy and the democratic order because such content brings clicks and interaction with the content. On the other hand, they make a profit through it.”
Strigulev further mentioned that such algorithms are everywhere and quoted Alexandra Giese, saying that such algorithms [e.g. “For You” pages] should be regulated, and turned off during election periods. Strigulev also drew attention to various chatbots that use artificial intelligence (AI) technology, and said that between 6 and 50 percent share disinformation that we know is linked to the Kremlin, including sharing sources from the “Pravda” network of pages. The network published an astronomical 3.6 million articles in 2024 alone.
The last speaker was Despina Kovachevska, from the Metamorphosis Foundation, and she concluded this discussion with a critical examination of hate speech and its relationship to disinformation:
“Hate speech justifies disinformation, increases stigma and bias. Especially when we have unprofessional media outlets that chase clicks and profit instead of thoroughly checking the facts, then I have a big problem,” Kovachevska shared.
In the end, there was a consensus that the Digital Services Act is the best path to harmonizing the domestic laws in the process of accession to the European Union. This process should not be done pro forma, but should be an inclusive and transparent process, especially if we want the big platforms to take this region more seriously–the speakers agreed.

The last session of the first day of the Metamorphosis International Conference, photo: Vancho Dzambaski
Business, sometimes, knows how to show integrity
The final discussion of the conference focused on “The Business Case for Information Integrity.” Opening remarks were given by the moderator of the discussion, Dragan Kremer, a media expert, who highlighted several examples from both Serbia and the United Kingdom, especially from the Sun newspaper and the Breitbart website in the United States, which have started to lose advertisers (i.e. companies that advertise in their media outlets) due to the content they publish. The companies have publicly renounced advertising, which they have also used as a kind of PR tool to present the values ​​they stand behind. That is, the values ​​they do not want to support or be associated with at all, such as those presented by Breitbart and the Sun, which have been spreading disinformation, racist, and xenophobic content.
Rasha Nedeljkov, the program director of Serbia’s Crta, followed up with the example of Happy TV, where almost the same thing happened. Several brands have canceled their advertisements from media outlets that very clearly share fake news and manipulated content–​​especially content related to the war in Ukraine.
However, the impact is not limited to domestic companies and brands only, it extends to international ones. Marko Milosavljević, a professor at the University of Ljubljana, explains that ads from international advertisers can be a double-edged sword.
“Just as this works for companies that fight against problematic content, there are also those that promote hate speech. What will happen in the EU and the Western Balkans, will major platforms start shutting down ads from media outlets that advocate for fact-checking, transparency and accuracy? There will be huge consequences for the media ecosystem,” Milosavljević pointed out.
He shared the example of companies that disagree with the policies of the Donald Trump administration and may be intimidated into reducing their advertising, and the money may be redirected to media outlets that spread disinformation and “stir up panic.”
Maja Sever, President of the European Journalist Federation, referred to other advertising from states and governments themselves, which can be the largest source of income for media outlets. According to Sever, there are no transparent criteria for government advertising, as shown in the research, where public funds are concentrated in just a few established media outlets, while independent media outlets receive not “a single denar.”
“This is due not so much to the content they publish, but to the editorial independence that the media outlets have. We need to find a way to establish responsible advertising as the norm, not the exception,” Sever said.
Vladimir Petreski, Editor-in-Chief of Truthmeter.mk, had the closing remarks. He emphasized that these things can be interpreted through the saying “vote with your wallet,” that is, to make choices according to what is most financially profitable. Petreski pointed to the example of X (formerly Twitter), saying:
“The company (X) has not recovered [financially] since Elon Musk took over. Companies began to collectively boycott content moderation decisions, after which Musk tried to sue advertisers.”
However, he emphasizes that the situation in Macedonia is different, because such a boycott can be (mis)used as a reason for a lawsuit, that is, it can be interpreted as an insult, damage to reputation, through so-called SLAPP lawsuits. On the other hand, another problem is the avalanche of digital and internet scams that have appeared across Macedonian social networks: “We see false advertisements and we see that they are in different languages ​​throughout the region, most often for medical drugs,” says Petreski. But the problem with scams is that immediately after they are reviewed, they disappear and new ones appear. This is an indicator that they have good channels where they can sell information to data brokers or simply steal money from users.

With the advent of the Internet and social networks, the number of information attacks has increased dramatically and their impact on democratic processes has become even more devastating. Elections, as an expensive and essential component of social life, are today one of the most vulnerable mechanisms in democratic societies–they are constantly under attack from both internal and external actors, as emphasized at the panel discussion.
Monitoring the information space is a constant struggle. Information threats have always been an obstacle to democracy and free and fair elections throughout human history. However, with the advent of the Internet and social networks, the number of information attacks has increased dramatically and their impact on democratic processes has become even more devastating. Elections, as an expensive and essential component of social life, are today one of the most vulnerable mechanisms in democratic societies –they are constantly under attack from internal and external actors.
These were the conclusions of the panel discussion titled “Democracy at Risk: Electoral Integrity VS. Information Threats–Western Balkans and EU, Experiences and Risk Mitigation” held today as part of the conference “Together for Truth: Whole-of-Society Approach to Safeguard Democracy.”
The panel discussion brought together speakers from several countries in the Western Balkans and the EU, who shared the experiences of their societies regarding the impact of information threats after democratic elections.
The tragedy in Kochani, which killed 59 young people, has encouraged PR and other mechanisms that political parties usually use before elections–spin, directing emotions, invoking rules and morality, ethics in the media, and even involving so-called “bot farms” with hate speech and threats. This was emphasized by the executive director of the Council of Media Ethics of Macedonia (SEMM), Biljana Georgievska.
According to her, this instrumentalization of the tragedy by the parties is done in collaboration with some of the traditional and online media outlets, which spread the narratives of the political parties without critical processing.
“The inclusion of all these mechanisms was a result of and initiated by the accident, and the timing appeared to be just right–6 months before the local elections, when an unofficial election campaign is starting to be conducted here,” said Georgievska.
As she added, not only did the tragedy not unite media outlets in a joint call for the safety of all citizens in this country in the future, but it also divided them over the extent of reporting on the tragedy.
“It has even gone to extremes–some demanding the complete removal of the cameras, supposedly protecting the privacy of the victims and families, while others are selling grief for likes and clicks,” added the executive director of SEMM.
The “PR factory” of all political parties has been unleashed with the risk of harming the integrity of the upcoming elections, Georgievska assessed.
She noted that without clear regulation, the electoral process will continue to be at risk and stressed that it is necessary to urgently review the Electoral Code and make a distinction between responsible and irresponsible media outlets.
Emilija Petreska-Kamenjarova from the Agency for Audio and Audiovisual Media Services (AVMU) pointed out that, although traditional media outlets are subject to monitoring and have clear rules, there are no precise guidelines for online campaigns.
In the last double elections (parliamentary and presidential) in the country, over 5 million seconds of radio and television advertising were monitored–a figure that, according to Petreska-Kamenjarova, speaks volumes about the amount of financial resources allocated for political advertising. However, there is almost no regulation in the digital space.
“That gap that exists is filled with a campaign that is continuously becoming more and more fierce. We are witnesses to this shift, we can see there are studies which clearly show that more and more campaigns are moving to the online space, with a particular surge of activity by officials on social networks during the campaign. That surge is so great that even ODIHR in its report on the previous elections said that clear rules should be applied in the Electoral Code on the participation of officials in campaigns on social networks,” said Petreska-Kamenjarova .
As she added, AVMU decided to initiate a code of conduct for online campaigns, but as a regulatory body, they cannot do it alone. They need cooperation with other stakeholders.

Photo: Vancho Dzambaski
Madalina Voinea from Expert Forum, Romania, shared her country’s experience with a candidate in last year’s presidential election who, despite a massive online campaign, failed to declare any expenses for it. She warned of the institutional failure to regulate the digital space and pointed to TikTok as “one of the most powerful tools for political communication” in Romania.
“There are many loopholes when it comes to allowing such campaigns to go viral. There are few measures to prevent such campaigns. What we found in our research was that around 30,000 profiles were activated since September–not just a month before the elections, but also after the elections. There is a lack of transparency when it comes to the financing of the ads. There is no information about how much was spent, about the name of the person who published the ad, and it was more difficult to determine the scope of the problem. We can only see the coordinated networks and we all know that this is a coordinated attempt to influence the information space,” Voinea emphasized.
She explained that many fake profiles were also created on social networks, which published satire and jokes on which the controversial candidate’s communication campaign was built.
“This was largely a campaign where the same sentences were used, with names and content that were ‘copy-pasted’. This was a clear indication that this was a coordinated campaign, but it was also unexpected. It was clear that it was being activated and deactivated. Since his candidacy was finally canceled, his official profile is completely different. Also, the number of such profiles has almost halved,” Voinea said.
She emphasized that before the elections, Romania did not have a single mechanism for dealing with such online threats, but after the elections, institutional capacity building and the adoption of practices similar to those in the EU began.
“We were polite to the platforms. It cost us a lot. It’s time to talk less about cooperation and more about alignment. Our future is at stake,” Voinea concluded.
Tamara Branković from CRTA, Serbia, said that, unlike other countries where foreign actors are accused of election interference, in Serbia the problem is “domestic” and “the state itself is the biggest source of manipulation and disinformation.”
“We are generally quite traditional in the way we inform, and the government and President Vučić use the media’s access to violate the constitution to centralize power. In 2024 alone, Vučić appeared more than 350 times live on television, with coverage and live broadcasts. Year after year, his television appearances are becoming more frequent,” Branković said.
She believes that it is crucial that citizens are given tools that will allow them to recognize that something is wrong with the electoral process, and that the EU must become more actively involved.
Фото: Ванчо Џамбаски
Bardhi Bakija of Sbunker, Kosovo, highlighted authoritarian trends and disinformation campaigns coming from the country’s borders, as he said, especially from the north, but also from global extremist narratives. His analyses shows that previously marginalized views, through social networks, are now becoming mainstream, especially among young people.
“Whatever our response to this, we need to consider how advanced the methods and strategies of these actors are. One of the biggest mistakes we can make here is to underestimate the disinformation campaigns, their methodology, their sophistication, and their ability to engage young audiences,” warned Bakija from Sbunker.
The panel was moderated by Nikola Petrovic from ISAC, Serbia, who emphasized that democracy is much more than free elections–it is a fight against threats that erode trust in institutions, especially when those threats come in the form of disinformation, covert manipulation and media spin.
The panel discussion ended with a clear message: democratic societies must be prepared, resilient, and informed to defend the truth and integrity of the electoral process.

Building bridges of cooperation. Sharing lessons from different experiences with malicious fake news. Creating strategic platforms. The necessity of strategic action. These are some of the main conclusions of the second session titled: “Geopolitical 360 on information threats – European learned lessons shared for the Western Balkans,” which was held within the framework of the international conference in Skopje organized by the Metamorphosis Foundation, writes Portalb.mk
Martha Turnbull, COI Director of the Hybrid Center of Excellence in Finland, said in her speech that in the last decade the center she represents has conducted numerous campaigns to combat disinformation.
“We see different actors sharing fake news, some of them coming from abroad, some from within countries. Russia still remains the main actor in the Euro-Atlantic region, but we also see actors from China. We see an increase in threats. We have cases where the Russians are creating centers in the country and then acting. Combating these activities is becoming a serious challenge that we need to work on, share information and protect ourselves in a synchronized way,” Turnbull said.
According to Beaudine Verhoek, from NATO’s Public Diplomacy Division, there are harmful threats, manipulative content, coordination, and deliberate manipulation.
“We are highlighting what information we need to respond to and act on. NATO and allies will continue to cooperate with each other, to counter in a timely manner. We have a strategic concept in both Chinese and Russian, to be present for audiences who speak the same language. If we do not tell our story, others will tell it for us. We have launched a campaign in Ukraine and we are supporting it continuously,” Verhoek emphasized, adding that strategic communications should be a pillar of the fight against disinformation.
“No one can act alone. We also have many partners. Today’s conference is important, to exchange lessons learned, to help each other,” added the guest .
Sanda Svetoka, a senior NATO StratCom expert from Latvia, highlighted the experiences from her analysis in her speech.
“We have always been on Russia’s radar, but that has not taught us much about how to deal with these issues. We have created a knowledge base about the tactics of the Russians and what tactics they use in the region. We do regular information exchange about negative actors. We have developed a good basis for adversary narratives. Since 2020, we have started to focus not only on the activities of the Russians, but also on the Chinese in the region. Sharing information is key. The goals of the adversaries are similar for every country. The idea is to coordinate to counter them,” assessed Svetoka.
According to Katarina Klingova, Senior Research Fellow at GLOBSEC, Slovakia, building resistance is a process, something that needs to be facilitated by both the state and civil society.
“Non-governmental organizations can do the most work, they are more flexible, they have different platforms and cooperation. We need the cooperation of all state actors. We need to create space for experts to share their experience. Some do, but some don’t have the space,” Klingova said.
A Dutch expert, on the other hand, spoke about the importance of analyzing and sharing lessons learned.
“We share information so that policymakers can build policies. Lessons need to be learned, analyzed, and shared. Understanding is extremely important. Then comes flexibility and multi-discipline,” emphasized Laura Jasper, Strategic Analyst, HCSS, Netherlands .
“Russian disinformation wants to justify its occupation and present itself as defenders. This rhetoric continues today. We need to focus on the countries that Russia is targeting. Analyze Russia’s narratives, monitor the technologies used to share malicious information, and create networks and collaborations of fact-checking organizations. Authorities must also cooperate and block these messages that threaten public safety. The goal is not only to expose fake news channels, but also to punish them, although that is difficult,” said, among other things, Sonya Dimitrova-Martinyuk, Editor of StopFake, from Ukraine.
Fact-checkers, journalists, researchers, policymakers and civil society leaders from across the Western Balkans and Europe will gather in Skopje today and tomorrow, as part of an international conference organized by the Metamorphosis Foundation, to share lessons learned and experiences in combating disinformation, and to work on creating a network that will serve as a platform to combat malicious fake news and educate the public on how to protect themselves from it.