Mediaboss Marketing

In a long and most informative post from last March, Tablet news editor Jacob Siegel takes a hard look at the suddenly popular concept of disinformation. A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Centuryis essential reading for understanding key ways the concept affects our information world. Ill touch on just three take-home points here.

But first, a reflection. Have you ever wondered why we so seldom hear the term false information today? Instead, we hear about misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, etc. These concepts suddenly loomed into public prominence during the COVID lockdowns. All of these alleged information vices amount to deviations from whatever government is saying at any given time. Many public figures and organizations have jumped into the fray, eager to fight the menace.

False information is, by contrast, a simple old concept. For example, every health department everywhere deals with false ideas like the claim that menthol cigarettes areless harmful than regular ones. Conventional honest communication telling people that a wide body of research shows that that is not true is the only needed response. Those who have decided to believe something against the evidence will continue to do so anyway. End of story.

As Siegel shows, the concept of disinformation and the alleged war on it spring from deeper, more malignant roots. First, the concept of disinformation has nothing whatever to do with truth or falsehood:

In a technical or structural sense, the censorship regimes aim is not to censor or to oppress, but to rule. Thats why the authorities can never be labeled as guilty of disinformation Disinformation, now and for all time, is whatever they say it is. That is not a sign that the concept is being misused or corrupted; it is the precise functioning of a totalitarian system.

If the underlying philosophy of the war against disinformation can be expressed in a single claim, it is this: You cannot be trusted with your own mind. What follows is an attempt to see how this philosophy has manifested in reality.

So disinformation is simply information not in accord with government goals. Its accuracy relative to the accuracy of information provided by government is irrelevant. It you accept the concept at all, that fact is part of the package.

Second, Siegel punctures the widespread (and attractive!) myth of the internet, that it has always functioned as a liberating force. In reality, it originated in the defense establishment of the United States and there was always close co-operation between the White House and Silicon Valley. For example, From 2009 to 2015, White House and Google employees were meeting, on average, more than once a week. The recent Twitter files revelations revealed to most of the public how much social media censorship government has exercised over the years, in collusion with Silicon Valley. He writes,

As Obamas secretary of state, Hillary Clinton led the governments Internet freedom agenda, which aimed to promote online communications as a tool for opening up closed societies. In a speech from 2010, Clinton issued a warning about the spread of digital censorship in authoritarian regimes: A new information curtain is descending across much of the world, she said. And beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day.

It is a supreme irony that the very people who a decade ago led the freedom agenda for other countries have since pushed the United States to implement one of the largest and most powerful censorship machines in existence under the guise of fighting disinformation.

And perhaps this part should come as no surprise: As traditional journalism is collapsing, its refugees, now working for non-government organizations (NGOs) funded by billionaires, are increasingly the frontline warriors against disinformation:

There is no reason to question the motivations of the staffers at these NGOs, most of whom were no doubt perfectly sincere in the conviction that their work was restoring the underpinning of a healthy society. But certain observations can be made about the nature of that work. First, it placed them in a position below the billionaire philanthropists but above hundreds of millions of Americans whom they would guide and instruct as a new information clerisy by separating truth from falsehood, as wheat from chaff.

There is every good reason for citizens of free societies to be suspicious of claims that we desperately need these people to manage our information choices for us. However, any reform in this area must come from the bottom. It will be slow, grueling and widely misrepresented work.

You may also wish to read: How bottom up media now threaten the traditional top tier. New media resources like subscription-based Substack are rapidly becoming the venue of choice for whistleblowers with stories to break. The rise and fall of intellectual movements may well now depend on their ability to use new media successfully to express their views.

More:
Why Don't We Hear So Much About False Information Any More? - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence