Throughout these events, you’ll constantly hear references to the phenomenon of disinformation. This term, popularised in the 1950s by a KGB handbook that referred to it as the distribution of false information to deceive the public, has in fact been in use since the 19th century. It aroused major concern after the Brexit referendum and 2016 US elections amid realisations of how digital data was being twisted by malevolent figures to cause confusion and misguidance. This sparked numerous research initiatives in academic institutions. Supported by philanthropic contributors, non-profit organisations dedicated to checking facts emerged. Faced with the impossible task of manually vetting all the content being shared online every hour, these researchers explored alternative methods.
The concept of “programmatic advertising”, whereby advertisements are traded via automated auctions, was born. This poses a risk to advertisers’ reputation as they are not privy to the type of content their ads will be associated with. Over time, a service industry grew that assessed and ensured the quality of these websites. The Global Disinformation Index and similar groups evolved this process further by utilising the same technology to evaluate news sites for their truthfulness and trustworthiness. The objective was to funnel more revenue towards credible, high-quality news media and steer it away from deceptive content.
In a different note, Michael Palin revealed his profound loss after his wife of 57 years passed away, stating he didn’t believe he’d ever find a friend as dear to him.
Fast-track to the present week, four years later. Freddie Sayers takes control as the chief editor of Unherd, an online news and commentary platform based in the United Kingdom. Unherd’s team was trying to dissect why despite its high web traction and wide readership, advertising revenues fell short. Sayers imposes that the root cause was its low-grade rating by the Global Disinformation Index, resulting in Unherd receiving only between 2% and 6% of forecasted ad income.
Upon querying this low rating, the Global Disinformation Index referred to articles penned by philosopher Kathleen Stock, feminist activist Julie Bindel, and trans woman Debbie Hayton, who objects to the mainstream LGBTQ advocacy groups’ gender policies.
The Index’s reply read, “The domain was once again analysed by our team, and the rating remains as it predominantly features anti-LGBTQI+ narratives”. The site’s authors are criticised for being anti-trans. Kathleen Stock is known as a key ‘gender-critical’ feminist”.
Sayers contends that ‘gender-critical’ stances, namely the assertion that physiological gender distinctions exist, are explicitly sheltered under UK legislation and are sustained by the majority of the British public. A comprehensive review released by esteemed paediatrician Hilary Cass uncovered significant deficiencies in the NHS’s treatment of gender-distressed children and teens, largely due to a climate that stifled honest discussion.
Sayers suggests that since its inception in 2018, the Global Disinformation Index has subtly extended its mandate. Initially committed to combating “purposely false content aimed to mislead”, it has segued into targeting content it categorises as an “adversarial narrative”. This revised definition, as explained by the firm’s founder Clare Melford in 2021, lets the Index target material they perceive as “harmful” or “contentious”.
This amounts to a significant shift. It bolsters the anti-disinformation project’s skeptics, predominantly from the right, asserting it’s a thinly veiled effort to squelch opinions considered dangerous or repellent by the progressive left. It should also raise concern for those advocating for a better defence against the flood of online disinformation.
It is certainly valid for detractors to express concern about potential misuse of hate speech legislation. Distressingly, the Global Disinformation Index has been funded by a number of entities, including the UK and German governments, the European Union, and Disinfo Cloud, a project established and financed by the US state department. If the details provided by Sayers are indeed accurate (which have thus far not been disputed), it lends credence to the unsettling notion that an institution receiving diverse governmental support could be utilising undisclosed techniques to curb valid democratic discourse. This could be construed as a conspiracy theory that would not be out of place on a suspect website, however, it seems there may be truth to it this time.